An Open Letter to the Brown Berets

An Open Letter to the Brown Beret's

I am writing to address some issues regarding the role that the Brown Berets have taken on in the recent marches around the immigration struggle. I will also write about a few other criticisms I have of the activities of the group in general. I bring these up for the Beret's to discuss. You can respond if you like, ignore me or do as you please with my words.

I'm offering these words of critique as a friendly gesture to those who may find value in them. When I offer critique it is meant to offer some analysis and address what I see as contradictions between ones practice and ones stated goals. Specifically, I am referring to the goal of acting as catalyst and actualizer of revolutionary activity. For a short definition of what I mean by revolution, I'll state that I am not merely wanting a change of the guard, or a "dictatorship of the proletariat", or any other authoritarian rubbish. When I speak of revolution, I am referring to a transformation of relationships, in order to destroy class divisions, hierarchy, exploitation. I am talking about a world where people and others who inhabit this planet are able to create life on their own terms and not someone else's.

My impression is that most, if not everyone in the Brown Beret's are advocates of revolution. What this means exactly, I imagine may differ greatly from person to person. But I'll use my simple definition as the point of reference in this letter.

My criticisms are as follows...

Brown Berets Collaborating With The Police or Acting As Police

Examples:

1) A Brown Beret organizer talking to the police chief of Watsonville over the phone before the second student walkout day to negotiate how to deal with the students.

2) During the second day of student walkouts, Beret's went to a variety of student's meeting spots and directed them into the plaza.

3) During marches Brown Beret's direct crowds so as to minimize social unrest.

I understood the intention to be that Beret's were trying to prevent a repeat of the previous days brutality of students. Certainly what happened with the previous walk-out was unpleasant for many students. My criticism of the approach taken by the Brown Beret's in this scenario was that rather than encourage self-organization and revolt, the Beret's took on the role of vanguardists managing revolt. In the same way that unions act as power brokers with the owner/boss of a factory or business, the Beret's acted as intermediaries and ultimately as recuperators of revolt. Anytime there is negotiating with the police, it is clear that revolutionary activity has ceased.

It makes sense that the police were interested in the Beret's help. The Beret's were able to do more effectively what the police couldn't, control the crowds of students without receiving negative publicity. This was effectively done by sending Beret's to each of the students meeting locations, then convincing them to concentrate in the plaza.

At least one person with the Beret's claimed to have radicalized a thousand kids at these demonstrations. I would say that the first demonstration that the Beret's organized inspired students, but by taking the initiative, they (the students) took the steps towards radicalization. It was the Beret's that cut off this process of radicalization. They did this by taking on a leadership role and directing the activities of the students, rather than letting them, think about, discuss, and experiment with their own activities. Revolution is a process of empowerment, creativity and self-directed activity, not replication of the leader/follower roles of this society. It is fine to organize demonstrations, but the role of facilitation should end there. It is instigation to revolt, not trying to control people that will feed possibilities of insurrection.

4) In Santa Cruz on May Day, at the San Lorenzo park. A racist environmentalist carried a sign "Redwoods or Open Borders?" Despite this guy's poor analysis, some Brown Beret's attempted to pacify people who were harassing him upon his request, so as not to "distract from the speakers." Aside from the fact that the speakers were monotonous, it's disappointing to see not just tolerance but defense of people like this man.

5) The police told the Brown Beret's to control and clear out the pedestrian bridge at San Lorenzo Park on May 1st because there were "too many" people on the bridge. The Beret's then proceeded to thin out the crowd.

The fact that Beret's would rather tolerate the racist with the sign then cause a stir, says a lot about those organizers politics. It seems like they've swallowed some liberal-hippy notions about how we should "all just get along."

Personally, I'm pretty discouraged with the same old rhetoric, boring marches, and drawn-out rallies. Is it any wonder that people started to leave shortly after they reached San Lorenzo Park? People will stay and involve themselves in activities that they consider relevant. Chanting "Si se puede" in the park isn't very interesting or relevant.

I understand that not everyone there is interested in social conflict and that this event may not be the preferred moment for that activity for some people. But I am critiquing the Beret's roles as revolutionaries. If you want revolution, you cannot act against it. All of these examples and the critiques that follow I'm arguing to be counter-revolutionary acts. If you want a self-organized society, you need to allow space for people to act as they see fit (as long as it doesn't impinge on you or your fiends), not herding people around or other authoritarian behaviors.

Some Thoughts on Beret's Taking Position Within City Government

"When you take on the function of providing social services (through charity and other offerings) - where the state has left off - you cease to be a counter-force to the system, but rather a buttress to reinforce it. By providing scraps for the exploited to survive on, you hold back the disorder of the marginalized and any subsequent insurgency."

I've heard a little about Beret's taking up various positions within the local political racket of Watsonville to try to influence political decisions in a more positive direction.



I agree with the Berets in Los Angeles (or was it San Diego?) who have chosen to reject the taking of political positions within government. By joining the bureaucracy, all radical content gets drained from ones aspirations. People get caught up in trying to get scraps from those who hold a hegemony on power. It becomes a game of trying to get more and more adherents to a cause (an abstraction) and to present oneself as a representative of "the people," in an attempt at finding band-aids on our gaping societal wound. If one accepts that we cannot join the power structure and that revolution is necessary, politics must be abandoned. Those who join the bureaucracy, are buried in it.

Graffiti Cleanup

The other thing I overheard was mention of graffiti cleanup. To me graffiti is important to encourage rather than discourage. It's a form of defiance, rejecting the sacredness of property. It is a sign on the facade of stability that all is not well.



Sneaking around at night, avoiding the police, climbing into the oddest places to scrawl one's tag. There's a lot in that that is subversive, even if the message written isn't "radical." And certainly it encompasses using skills we all could use more practice in.



Graffiti clean-up seems more like a respect for yuppy values and a dis to taggers. There's a lot to be pissed about and defiance is something to encourage, not cover up.


Closing

I think it is good that the Beret's initiated demonstrations to the immigration bill, not in an attempt to run after specific pieces of legislation, but to increase the social clash and move towards a more conflictual relationship with the defenders of the social order. I'm opposed to the role that the Beret's took in directing and controlling crowds. Anyone who is claiming authority and telling others what to do is a cop, whether they have a brown band on their arm or a badge on their chest.

All these various examples of roles taken (acting as representatives of struggle, controlling demonstrations, negotiating with those in power, etc.) are all examples of vanguardist political methods of the 60's which failed to produce a better world. The hierarchical relationships are still maintained within these models.

By writing this it is a confirmation that I see the Brown Beret's as a very significant grass-roots group that has a lot of potential. I've appreciated the "Youth and Power" events, the various attempts at spreading awareness about important issues, and the attentiveness that Beret's have given to issues that emanate from their communities. The Beret's I've met tended to be sincere and dedicated. I can't think of a public organization within Santa Cruz County that is as influential as the Beret's.

I want to reiterate that my criticism is meant as a tool, for you to consider, reflect upon, and take what you think is of value. I'm not attempting to personally attack. I offer these words because I care about what the Beret's do with their efforts, but I don't think the means sometimes used are congruent with what I think are the intended ends. I offer my assessment of the situation with the intention of provoking thought and bringing up contradictions that may prevent individuals working with the Beret's from actualizing their goals. I'd be interested in discussing this further with any of those who are part of the Brown Beret's. Responses are appreciated.

"Brian Carwell"
An invisible insurgent