From Vandals Strike Downtown Santa Cruz, City on a Hill Press (2010-05-06):

Emily Bernard, a manager at Dell Williams Jewelers, was shocked by the event.

[…] While the police department has not publicly verified individuals or groups that are involved except the two transients arrested […], it is investigating the group of vandals as a possible anarchist organization.

Business owners and Santa Cruz community members alike ^[1] are focusing their blame on SubRosa, an anarchist café, partly because one of the men arrested admitted picking up fliers for the event there.

We can’t let [an] anarchist café exist now that we know the potential of what they can do and publicize, Bernard said.

—Jenny Cain & Julia Reis, City on a Hill Press (2010-05-06): Vandals Strike Downtown Santa Cruz

I don’t know why Emily Bernard thinks that the existence of an anarchist café should be subject to her personal sufferance. She manages a business, but she doesn’t own downtown Santa Cruz. SubRosa pays their rent to a landowner who is willing to have them, and they have as much of a right to be there as anybody else. But in any case, the SubRosa community space is being scapegoated, harassed, and targeted by other business owners for eradication, for no other reason than the fact that they are Anarchists.

See also:

• GT 2010-05-06: Rad Geek answers your questions (Cont’d)

1. ^[1] Sic — The article is operating on a rather selective notion of who counts as a Santa Cruz community member (apparently Johanna Isaacson, Simone Chandler, and other Santa Cruz residents who support, or are part of, the SubRosa collective, don’t count). ↩

Received in my e-mail inbox this past Monday, from someone who has not yet learned that half of all human decency in political thinking is just learning to keep your personal pronouns straight.

From: fuck you
To: AnarchistCafe.org working group
Subject: Message for AnarchistCafe.org working group
Date: 05/03/2010 09:47 AM

You fuckers started a riot in Santa Cruz!!! Why would you have a site like this???? You cased tens of thousands of dollars in damage!

In order:

1. No, I didn’t.

2. Because some people evidently don’t understand the ideas of Anarchism or what Anarchism stands for as a social movement. So, I think it’s cool for Anarchists, and people curious about Anarchism, to have places where they can meet each other in an informal environment and talk about what anarchy might mean.

   That, or I’m trying to make it easier for people to organize riots in Santa Cruz, California. You decide.

3. No, I’m pretty sure I didn’t.

I’m sorry to hear that rioters smashed up some stores in downtown Santa Cruz and spray-painted some circle-As around the place. But I, fucker that I may be, had nothing in particular to do with that. Neither, incidentally, did most Anarchists in and around Santa Cruz. Some Anarchists believe in street riots as a worthwhile tactic for social transformation; others don’t. In any case, those who want to holler about property damage ought to holler at the individual people who went out and committed it, not at any random stranger who happens to wear the same symbols or read the same books.

Anyway, Comrade You did not provide an e-mail address with the message, so I can’t reply directly. However, they seem to have written me because they had me confused with the SubRosa Cafe in Santa Cruz — which is currently being bearing the brunt of an increasingly nasty campaign of black-baiting, scapegoating, harassment, and direct threats from local Chamber of Commerce types, based solely on their political beliefs, on the assumption that, since they are part of the International Trotskyist-Anarchist Conspiracy, the riot is obviously their fault, even though they had nothing to do with it. In light of which I can only say that I regret that I have no affiliation with the fine folks behind such a wonderful community space. However, the message did inspire me to add a new Spaces section to the AnarchistCafe.org website, where I’m happy to include a listing for the SubRosa project. If you’re in the Bay Area, I encourage you to drop in and show your support. The SubRosa organizers also have a list of Ideas for creating a supportive atmosphere in Santa Cruz.

Fellow Workers:

In my allotted time, I hope to drill down a bit, and to say something about the structural features, and some of the mechanisms of what we might call state capitalism — of how, in this actually existing economy, the political structure of capitalism₂ (to use Gary Chartier’s threefold distinction) tend to produce and sustain the material conditions of capitalism₃ — how state corporatism promotes the bosses’ economy. Most of my remarks will be broadly historical and economic in character — although necessarily of a sketchy or programmatic sort, given the constraints of time and format. So consider this an outline of directions for inquiry and discussion; an attempt to show you briefly where key landmarks of the free market anti-capitalist analysis are at, rather than an attempt at a full guided tour. I think it important to at least sketch out the map because the chief obstacle that free market anti-capitalists confront in explaining our position is not so much a matter of correcting particular mistakes in political principles, or economic analysis (although there are particular mistakes we hope to address and correct). It is more a matter of convincing our conversation partners to make a sort of aspect-shift, to adopt a new point of view from which to see the political-economic gestalt.

The need for this shift is pressing because (with apologies to the feminist theorist Shulamith Firestone)^[1] the political economy of state capitalism is so deep as to be invisible. Or it may appear to be a superficial set of interventions, a problem that can be solved by a few legal reforms, or perhaps the elimination of bail-outs and the occasional export subsidy, while preserving more or less intact the basic recognizable patterns of capitalistic business as usual. The free market anti-capitalist holds there is something deeper, and more pervasive, at stake than the sort of surface level policy debates to which pro-capitalist libertarians too often limit their discussions. A fully freed market means the liberation of vital command posts in the economy, reclaiming them from points of state control to nexuses of market and social entrepreneurship — transformations from which a market would emerge that would look profoundly different from anything we have now. That so profound a change cannot easily fit into traditional categories of thought, e.g. libertarian or left-wing, laissez-faire or socialist, entrepreneurial or anti-capitalist, is not because these categories do not apply but because they are not big enough: radically free markets burst through them. If there were another word more all-embracing than revolutionary, we would use it.

1. ^[1] See the opening paragraph of Chapter 1 of Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex. ↩