“Portland must be done with punk fascists,” an Oregonian editorial stated a few days after May Day. The paper was talking about a group of anarchists who smashed windows at stores and government buildings in downtown Portland on May 1, and also set fire to items in the streets.
By the time the crowd cleared, more than 25 people had been arrested, though most faced accusations of disorderly conduct—not a charge for people accused of vandalism. A few were arrested for felony riot, and more charges might well be brought in coming days.
Notoriously media-averse, a handful of anarchists have claimed they’ve been given a bad rap from the press (the Oregonian also called them “parasites”). So we’ve been talking with them.
Jeff S., 29, was arrested on May Day and charged with disorderly conduct. He wants to make it clear he’s speaking only on his behalf and as a member of the Anarchist Student Union at Portland Community College, not for anarchists as a whole.
RELATED: Anarchist Interviews, Part 2: “May Day Was a Complete Success”
MERCURY: What is an anarchist?
JEFF S.: Well, first you have to define the state. The state is all these systems—bureaucracy, army, police, courts, judges—that exercise rule over people. Anarchists believe in a stateless society, that human beings can organize themselves horizontally—without hierarchical systems. Anarchists don’t believe any one human being has any right to exercise authority over another. Authority should be granted by trust, not the right to do violence like the police have. A lot of [the police] might be nice people and we might not think of them as inherently violent, but at the end of the day, all their power and the power of the state is backed up by violence. Anarchists are the exact opposite. You don’t need violence to have authority, you only need to have a conscious society, people who care about their neighbors and communities who come together and organize themselves without this third middleman. A lot of people who advocate for government say “without government, who would build the roads?” The same people who always built the roads: people…. The government takes our money from us, tells us how it’s going to be spent without any input, and then, say, builds a road and gives the money to a private contractor. Now why can’t a community come together and hand the money to the contractor? You don’t need to have money stolen from you by the government, which is then used towards foreign wars and the police. At the end of the day anarchists believe that things like taxation, authority without trust, national boundaries, national identities—these all work to separate human beings and stop them from organizing with one another.
Yeah, I’ve noticed anarchists do the “no more presidents” chant a lot.
Right, that’s a good example. What is a president? He’s just some figurehead. There’s this guy now that has all this power and authority. All these people who didn’t vote for his authority are now subjected to his will, the will of congress. It’s tyranny of the majority over the few. The minority matters, the oppressed are the oppressed. Anarchists think that government is the root of all evil. The police only protect you because it’s an objective they have to fulfill. Even if the individual police officer believes they’re doing right, at the end of the day it all boils down to control. Controlling the working class, controlling the flow of capital, protecting private property, keeping the workers obedient. Police and government don’t take care of problems because it’s altruistic, they need society to function so the ruling class, the capitalist class, can continue to maintain itself. We say that police are an evil institution because their entire job is to use force and coercion to make the poorest folks obey…. A lack of laws doesn’t mean a lack of morality…. Society can and should be organized along horizontal lines and people should be autonomous in their own action…. It comes back to taxes, too, which is another form of slavery. Appropriating 100 percent of someone’s labor is slavery, right? What about 99 percent? Where does it stop? If 18 percent of my paycheck is taken away, is that 18 percent enslavement? If you’re going to take taxes from us, give us an option where to send it or spend it on things people need. Half of the budget goes to foreign wars and imperialism—stealing, murdering, and framing it as if we’re some sort of heroes.
Why do anarchists show up to rallies, marches, and protests wearing all black?
The black bloc is what it’s called. It’s a tactic, not a group. Many different groups, including socialists, communists, antifa, [and] anarchists do it. It’s a tactic to carry out direct actions against what people see as the enemy: the state. As far as we see it, cops may be nice guys, but they are the enemy. If we’re out there at a protest, and they’re dressed up in riot gear and hurting people, they’re going to have a force to contend with. These people see themselves as freedom fighters, guerrillas, soldiers, as liberators. It pains a lot of them to see how society looks at them. There’s a protector element to them, a defender mentality. Take a place like Chase Bank, who’s guilty of some of the most heinous, evil theft on the planet. These people are saying to themselves “How dare you just skate by and get away with it.” And even if it’s a tiny, tiny repercussion, we’re going to offer you some—you’re a massive conglomerate, we’re going to make you pay $150 to replace a window. On May Day, every single piece of property I saw attacked was a legitimate target: corporate targets, state targets—places that exploit human beings, the working class, places that put profit above people. They’re waging war against humanity. Somebody’s going to wage war back.
Why does vandalism sometimes happen at public events? Is the goal to get attention?
To a degree, but random acts all over the place do happen all the time. Spray paint is usually used to leave a political message behind, and the target in and of itself is usually a message—a Wells Fargo. If it’s a mom-and-pop shop on the other side of the river, it’s probably just some drunk smashing. But (vandalism at corporate targets) happens all the time and the media doesn’t talk about it because that’s how you suppress resistance. And I wouldn’t be out in the street doing what I’m doing, or have previously done, if I hadn’t seen other people doing it first. They don’t want people seeing that. They don’t want people knowing that this consciousness is growing. After Quanice Hayes was killed, I got word that a bank on the east side of the river had its windows smashed, spray paint across the building—as far as I was told—and not a word was said about it. There’s a reason for that. They—the state, the media, the system—don’t want people knowing people are pissed. The corporate media is a propaganda wing of the state. If they’re not jerking the Portland Police Bureau off all the time, they’re not going to get the stories they need. But what happens at marches? Violence. We consider violence to be attacking human beings. Vandalism is propaganda by the deed. People see it happen, propaganda by the deed is a very powerful thing. You can read a book about ideology or you can see it happen. These deeds in and of themselves make a point. It’s part PR, but with the great chaos of the situation, that’s how a guerrilla thrives. We’ve never said that it’s nice, I’ve never met any direct-action anarchist that’s said it’s nice. We admit that it’s not nice. We’re not trying to be nice, they (the police/state) are not trying to be nice. You need mass amounts of the populace to watch and see.
How do you want people to interpret it?
We want them to know this isn’t some punk kid or some high SOB fucking shit up to just have fun. It’s the whole gamut of society—nurses, lawyers, doctors, daughters, students, Black, white, Muslim, Christian. These are pissed off people who want to take a stand against what they see as evil. We want them to know these aren’t punks, these are real human beings with a real message. We want them to think they’re taking a stand against something super nasty, not that they’re terrorist assholes. I think the media does a good job making it look as if the rest of society thinks it’s evil.
Why wear black masks?
The mask is not only tactical. The police, the riot police, special forces all wear black masks. Why? Because their identity being revealed could lead to serious problems for them. The same with us. You need to get rid of any thoughts of glory (by showing face, getting individual attention)—fuck glory. You’ll feel it in the moment with your comrades when you’re out there, but fuck that. It does you no good, it leads to ego, and you have to get rid of those ideas so you can mask-up, so people don’t know who you are, so you stay safe from workplace consequences, attacks from unsympathetic political groups, attacks from the state. It is all about safety.People can call us cowards, we don’t care, we know at the end of the day, we are actually doing the intelligent thing. People always fail to recognize police are in masks, too—we’re not face-to-face, we’re black mask to black mask. The difference between us and the police is they have immunity, get paid, and train for it. Police get a paycheck.
What does the media get wrong about anarchists?
For the last 120 years, it’s been nothing but dynamite throwers, thieves, terrorists, sadistic people who only want society to be thrown into chaos. The state has always been pushing this narrative because they don’t want people hearing what they actually have to say: that government is actually extremely useless, that you can have society without government, without chaos. Our view is radical [and] not acceptable to them, so they try to discredit it. The media, being the propaganda arm of the state, tries to do everything in its power to reject our opinion, but they only focus on black bloc direct action. There’s so much more about anarchism than that. They frame us as terrorists, as people who want to see everything fall apart, as young crust punks. They frame us as these aimless, bitter, hateful people who couldn’t make it in society. It’s so the opposite. People who rule, the ruling class, people like [Mayor Ted] Wheeler and Trump, regardless of where they are in the pyramid, they all have one goal, and that is the protection of their privilege. Anarchists call that privilege out—we smash your banks.
Do you get why many people view anarchists smashing windows as frightening?
I absolutely do. I absolutely get they have been conditioned their entire lives.
Anonymous people breaking windows does look scary, though.
That’s the thing, though. They can look at US Special Forces doing that in another country and go, “Aww, freedom!” They can look at previous social revolutions in this country and say, “Good job, but no more is needed.” They’re not realizing they’re seeing the Boston Tea Party happen again. They can’t make that connection. I understand why it’s frightening to them because they’re unable to make the connection on how it’s been acceptable in their eyes before, and why it’s not now. Capitalism has done a really good job imparting in their minds that property is an extension of themselves. People confuse private property and personal property. Capitalism has suggested when you damage someone’s property, you damage them so you’re doing violence against them. It’s a ridiculous hypocrisy they’re totally blind to. I get that we look like these ISIS ninjas and we’re smashing stuff, but people aren’t paying attention to what’s being smashed. If you smash up a mom-and-pop shop, that’s class treachery—they’re not paying attention to what’s being smashed. They don’t care that Target exploits its workers.
Why do some anarchists threaten some journalists who film public vandalism? Shouldn’t they either take responsibility or work harder to not get caught?
There were bounties out to get some cameras. But some of us said we shouldn’t commit robbery. But here’s the thing: I totally see what you’re saying, and I’m totally sympathetic. And yes, it’s in a very public place, but it’s really about how you’re filming, not that you’re filming. If you’re a journalist familiar with protests, familiar with these actions, and you’re stupid enough to walk into a black bloc—I don’t want to say the responsibility is on you, but you made the choice. It’s not what you’re filming, it’s how you’re filming it. If you stay away on the other side of the street, all right. But we much prefer to block as much as we can, because it’s a safety issue. Your camera means nothing to me compared to my freedom, or my friend’s freedom. Frankly, if someone’s getting in our face, being obnoxious, or filming dangerously when they’ve been told to stop, they’ve made their choice. When I heard about (bounties on cameras), I told people you’re probably not going to want to go around smashing cameras. You need to relax. If he gets in your face, if he won’t leave the bloc, if he’s filming something really sensitive and he won’t quit, do what you’re going to do, but don’t make a point of taking their cameras.
“And yes, it’s in a very public place, but it’s really about how you’re filming, not that you’re filming. If you’re a journalist familiar with protests, familiar with these actions, and you’re stupid enough to walk into a black bloc—I don’t want to say the responsibility is on you, but you made the choice. It’s not what you’re filming, it’s how you’re filming it.”
So, which is it?
Really, Mercury? Pathetic.
Mr Jeffrey Singer isn’t making a compelling argument for himself or his friends.
After some thought, punk seems quite appropriate.
This was actually a pretty interesting read. I know what anarchy is and disagree with tactics much more than the message. The idea that Jeff is a guerrilla in a resistance movement is funny. Jeff, your ideas are your own. Don’t do what you do because we need to be “woke”.
A structureless, horizontal society is a hard sell. It doesn’t really address human nature in an honest way. It just shits on the current hierarchical system as broken. Which I agree, it’s broken, but where’s the real solution? What if people don’t want to contribute and still want to eat? Who will feed them? What if they starve? What are people like when they are starving? What about the bad parts of humanity? Who will deal with that? The people? Not all people have the time, energy, mentality to deal with crime and criminals. How about a division of labor? Oops we have a police force again. How fucking gnarly would religion get if there were no government? Do you trust the pastor of your local church with a congregation full of gun toting followers to exercise restraint? How would the world not turn into millions of fiefdoms for “protection” and “benefits”?
Ask yourself five more critical questions and take a pragmatic accounting of what humans are really like and anarchy looks more like a way for these people to rage against authority than a plausible format for society.
An anarchist telling people about how things should be is self contradictory, no?
In any event, in the unlikely event that this thinking ever gained traction, you would see a hierarchy emerge in the movement and it would be led by entitled white guys. Anyone doubt that?
So police are bad, but subsidized community college is fine? Why does Jeff want the state to steal my money and then use it to educate him? Couldn’t he and the other folks who want the education just band together and pay the teachers themselves? I think an anarchist student union at a public college is pretty hypocritical.
Anarchism is by definition a without a group of individuals with the implicit monopoly over
I appreciate the interview and the forthrightness of Jeff. That said, it really does seem like he hasn’t met very many actual people in his life. He freely talks about power and violence and authority, but the only mention he makes of responsibility is in response to a direct question on the topic, and then he shifts the responsibility to another individual/group. He views authority solely as privilege rather than privilege weighed down with responsibility. His group can’t even manage to convince their own to smash only the proper targets and avoid “drunk smashing”. How does he think he can convince anyone of anything? His group accepts zero responsibility for anything nor does it provide remedies for what should happen when bad behavior does occur.
If he can solve the problem of scarcity of resources, I’m willing to give his world-view a listen, but short of that utopian landmark, I find it impossible to see his actions as anything other than just smashing stuff because he wants what he wants and is upset that he doesn’t have the authority to get it.
What nonsense.
Snickerdoodle has it right. Anarchism is a pedestrian, amateur political philosophy wholly incapable of dealing with the world as it is. It might work in small, collective groups. Guess what, society moved passed that centuries ago. It would never work on a city level, much less a state or nation or global level. So at the end of the day, they are fighting and destroying things in service to a bush league ideology.
“Anarchism is a pedestrian, amateur political philosophy.”
You won’t say that after you read the piece linked below. What is “pedestrian,” ignoring the classist implications of your word choice for the moment, is reading one or a handful of internet sources and thinking that that gives you enough data points to make a valid generalization from.
https://humaniterations.net/2015/08 /18/science-as-radicalism/
Actually Samantha is quite right. Nowhere here do I see mentioned hundreds of years of anarchist philosophy and political action, nor the multitude anarchists of pop culture (Charlie Chaplin, for instance) and local community who go unrecognized. Peter Kropotkin, considered by many to be one of the main roots of anarchist thought, was a celebrated scientist who pioneered the theory of mutual aid and contributed important ideas to evolutionary theory– ideas which support horizontal organization in a far more scientific and thorough way than one of the commenters above who tried to debunk it with off the cuff armchair philosophizing.
Just off the top of my head, there’s MIT professor Noam Chomsky, a professor of more than fifty years, who is one of the most celebrated linguists of the modern era, and literally the most quoted intellectual of all time. His works, such as “Understanding Power,” are monoliths of analysis of Unites States imperialism which include more data than it seems one person should be able to retain in a single mind alone. To call such a work “pedestrian,” is laughable at best.
There are countless other anarchist intelectuals I could mention, hidden in physics and systems science and mathematics and philosophy departments around the country, around the world– or even right here in Portland. Many people may be unaware of exactly how many professors at our local colleges are anarchists. You will find Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” in more than one professor’s office. And they probably loan it to their students.
Aside from academically, however, anarchists and their ilk have a long history of working class struggle and revolutionary movements of historical significance, the most known of which are revolutionary Catalonia, the Paris Commune and the EZLN in Chiapas. One prime motivator for insurrectionist anarchist tactics in the United States, and in fact one motivation for May Day itself, was the execution of four anarchists by the state; one committed suicide in prison; one served a sentence of 15 years, and two served life sentences, making for eight anarchists who were convicted and five who lost their lives over dynamite thrown during a rally at Haymarket Square in Chicago for the eight-hour workday. Yet there was no decisive evidence tying them to the bombing.
This country used to be a place where workers lived in capitalist-owned towns, where they worked twelve or sixteen hour a day shifts in mines that often took their lives, and where Pinkertons beat and killed anyone who resisted seriously enough. This is not some heady history lesson; you can learn about these things even in Hollywood movies. They are accepted even by nonhistorians as well-known events in US history. Anarchism was one of the prime motivators in putting an end to these conditions, which you can read about in the writings of Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman.
Aside from this US history around May Day, there are numerous anarchist and anarchist-influenced movements all around the world, both past and present. It’s not possible to do justice to them, or Haymarket for that matter, in one comment on the internet. Anarchism has a long and involved ideological history and features figures considered to be “towering figures” in the typical language used by, well, let’s face it, the mostly white males of academics– figures like Max Stirner who is known to have basically provided all the foundations of Neitszche’s philosophy. Whether I agree with the movements and people I am mentioning is irrelevant. The main attack in the ten above comments is that anarchism is juvenile and undeveloped. Well, I have debunked that. Really what is happening here is people need to learn how to read views they disagree with in depth before coming to the pompous conclusion that they understand it, which is a flagrant confirmation of the Dunning-Krueger effect and not very flattering to oneself.
The other argument I see being made in the comments is that anarchists cannot go to school or use roads or receive government money. We largely reject these purist deontological philosophies and find them very typical of people who don’t realize fully how much of a mark fundamentalist religion has marred us all with. Why is a deontological analysis assumed? In fact we are consequentialists, many of us. What this means is that it’s perfectly well and good to take money from anyone at all as long as it minimizes oppression and maximizes anarchist ideals of justice and liberty. We are not trying to sleep easy at night, we are trying to make the world a better place, and make all the hard decisions that come along with that. I’d rather take the government’s money and use it to destroy tyranny than to leave them a surplus to be diverted to state needs of their choice, which often fuel the prison and military industrial complexes. The argumentation in the comments is intellectually juvenile at best.
More here: https://weareforall.wordpress.com/
I actually sympathize with the anarchists, but this whole “destroying property is not violence” is something only privileged barren white males would come up with. Try stealing someone’s cellphone, especially if it’s the only connection they have to work and family. Try destroying someone’s bike if it’s the only way they can get to work. Smash the window of the woman’s business, who voted for Bernie Sanders, and see if she comes away from that in favor of anarchy. Anarchy means self-governance, not reckelessly attacking people with whom you have no quarrel. And whining that your life is not like Trump’s children shows that you are just another leftist disguising an old fashioned human emotion — envy. I don’t envy the rich or anyone for that matter because I do believe in self governance and avoid buying into the idea that what I own defines who I am. But this guy sounds like he’s just mad at things not turning out his way in life, not actually in touch with real people. It doesn’t matter the society you construct, we all have to work one way or another, whether as peasant farmers or techies in cubicles. The question is how do we share the wealth? One way to start is to not act like petulant profane children just because half the country was so frustrated they voted for a complete incompetent as president.
“Many people may be unaware of exactly how many professors at our local colleges are anarchists.” Thanks for the good laugh! Now if you’re serious, start a business based on sharing your wealth. Get your medical friends to open a free health clinic. Talk to your local food market about sharing its gleanings with the poor. It’s easy for an academic to be an anarchist. What exactly is the cost? It’s a lot harder for a cop, but until you convert a cop or a guy just back from Iraq after his third tour, this movement will remain marginalized and, as its alleged representatives in Portland seem intent on doing, increasingly be seen as just another episode of Portlandia and not a serious remodeling of society.
“Anarchists don’t believe any one human being has any right to exercise authority over another.”
-The only reason Anarchists are in the news right now is because they organize to violently stop specific people from speaking in public.
Mr Greener, exactly why do you think anarchists are not doing any of this:
” start a business based on sharing your wealth. Get your medical friends to open a free health clinic. Talk to your local food market about sharing its gleanings with the poor.”
is beyond me. Search google. There’s Food Not Bombs, the Icarus Project and plenty of infoshops and collectives all over the country like Anarres in your very own city which are doing exactly that. Why people think their ignorance is excusable is beyond me when all of this is readily available on google.
In fact, Mr. Greener, the very link I already gave which you must not have clicked on describes some of these projects in great detail. It is clear here that some other bias is fueling your flippant responses.
A lot of business culture books over the past decade have promoted the idea of non-hierarchical organisational structure as a way to promote innovation and increase productivity. So it’s not just Jeff the College Student talking that game. I’m not a converted anarchist, but it was an interesting read.
@ for all. The projects and professors you mention, are they smashing windows and starting fires? Or are they adults who are exercising their right to diversity of thought in a free and democratic society?
LOL at claiming anarchist credit for basically the entire labor movement. Lost all credibility with that one. Are there intellectuals who are/were anarchists? Sure. That doesn’t make the basic philosophy or the dude quoted in the article or you practitioners making great use of your Thesaurus any more pedestrian (oh, I’m sorry, I’ll use the word “stupid” instead – why use a $20 word when a $2 word will do!).
The fact that you can only trot out a handful of legitimate examples of anarchist “influence” (and most of them you’re taking credit for a much larger movement) pretty much speaks to how small and fairly insignificant it actually is in the context of the larger human machine.
@Natron – yes, non-hierarchical structures/organizations do have benefits in some contexts. In other contexts, more gets done more efficiently with a hierarchy. That’s why it’s lazy thinking for anarchists to think the core of their philosophy applies (or could even be semi-workable) across the board in society. It’s not at all a good argument for anarchy generally.
@18- sounds like the model the black and red cafe used and business is just booming for them, isn’t it?
@ForAll, I was specifically referring to the anarchist’s comment that violence against property wasn’t violence. Sorry, but it is. Food Not Bombs would not appreciate me smashing up their stuff, I assume, and I wouldn’t because I just wouldn’t do that to anyone. And food banks, credit unions, etc., have all been organized ad infinitum by churches, unions, etc. So it’s great that some anarchists are doing this, but many of the people they disdain and attack — including the cops — were doing it long before they were. If you constantly fight with cops, then you have dehumanized them and are playing the Man’s Game. The anarchists in PDX smashing stuff and jumping in front of buses — the primary means of transport for working class and poor people — are the best friends Trump has. I’ve been on trains and buses and heard how fed up people are with the black bloc people. There’s no working class solidarity with these guys, there’s just growing resentment that they have no sense of how their tantrums affect people’s lives. They make the Left look childish and immature and, worst of all, violent and threatening. I don’t care how many rationalizations some black bloc kerchief breather trots out, these anarchists are actually creating a climate that will make scared people return Trump to office in 2020.
These people are anarchists who are rioting for bigger government. Anyone see the irony here?
During the Reagan years some of the same sentiments regarding unjust authority over individuals was in the forefront.
For example, saber rattling by neo cons, marginalizing immigrants, defunding govt programs aimed at educating, feeding and healing of the poor.
Bakunins’ ideas became interesting to me and I read some of his works and took them to heart. Fast forward 34 yrs and here we are bullied by a pouty, groping, infantile “man” posing as a leader and people are searching for answers as to why, how and what to do to direct their anger.
Direct action against what he represents makes sense to me in theory but store front smashing cant win any converts and will lose the battle before its begun. The police side with and protect Nazi sympathisers, Patriot Prayer, Oath Keepers because they give cops respect…deserved or not..they know how to keep cops on their side. And that will determine the fate of any movement in this society.
Some say Black bloc or Antifa, forgive me I see them as overlapping, have done good works in protecting innocents from assault by White Nationalists/Nazis etc and I think thats a good thing. I mingled amongst them for 20 mins on June 4 in Portland.
I was struck by their diversity and youth.
I dont care how they came aboutbeing radicalized, it takes big guts for…excuse me…skinny, unmilitary trained youth to stand up to what I call ChristoFascists or The Violent Right.
Im not saying this excuses property damage in the name of injustice.
Far be it for me, a middle age white guy with a bank account to offer direction to the resistors..but..just imagine the results if Antifa, Black bloc, Redneck Revolt etc were trained to a much higher level of discipline. No more smashing or pelting cops with bricks. A unified, highly disciplined (yeah, not fun I know) movement of people able to surround and shut down fascists at will. Something to think about next time the guy/gal next to you is throwing a bottle at a window that has no connection to Trump and cops thump down on you, tv news condemns you, “patriots” vow to kill you etc.
Having a central command is contrary to anarchist teachings I know but times change movements need to adapt in order to succeed. Put down the brick and gather strategy.