Radical Resistance in Conservative Times: New Asian American Organizations in the 1990s

By Diane C. Fujino and Kye Leung

Thirty years after the emergence of the Asian American Movement, new Asian American formations continue to expand the struggle. However, like other US-based social movements, the Asian American Movement today is qualitatively different than in the 1960s and 70s. The political-economic landscape of the 1990s is much more conservative. Economic restructuring, the rise in conservatism including Asian American neo-conservatives, and FBI and police repression past and present have left the radical movements in a weakened condition. Within the Asian American Movement, we witnessed the dissolution in the late 1980s and early 1990s of revolutionary formations with substantial Asian membership such as the League of Revolutionary Struggle. Yet radical Asian American organizing continues, primarily among the youth. And it is our contention that early 1998 marked the beginning of a qualitative upsurge in the Movement.

This chapter focuses on five radical Asian organizations that formed in the 1990s. We did not include liberal or progressive groups such as social service agencies, non-profit organizations, or worker's centers; radical formations that primarily focus on homeland anti-imperialist struggles given the focus of this anthology (though we recognize the continuity between local and international activism); or Asian American activists in multiracial or predominantly White revolutionary groups. We chose to focus on groups rather than individuals because it takes organization to create sustained social change. While the groups examined here represent the majority of radical pan-Asian organizations that have emerged in the 1990s, there are a few new radical formations that were not included; we were unable to contact them or they had already dissolved by the late 1990s. In addition, we are not highlighting new Asian formations in New York City that are already represented in this anthology (articles by Wayne Lum and Tinku Sengupta) and tend to have progressive politics. While preliminary, this paper is the first to examine the contours of radical Asian American organizations formed in the 1990s. We hope it will led to further explorations into radical Asian America.
Background on New Radical Organizations

This chapter examines five radical Asian American organizations: API FORCE, ASIAN!, ACTION, the Asian Left Forum, and the Asian Revolutionary Circle. The assessment of these groups is based on interviews with members, published documents, internal papers, informal conversations with activists. and our direct participation in some of these groups and in the Asian American Movement.

Members of API FORCE, or Asians and Pacific Islanders for Community Empowerment, came together in Northern California at a September 1994 meeting to discuss "The State of the Asian American Movement." Out of that meeting, and simultaneous with the frustration various Asian American activists experienced over cultural insensitivity in the Proposition 187 campaign, about a dozen activists established an organization to voice progressive concerns of the Asian and Pacific Islander (API) community. API FORCE was founded in January 1995 through the leadership of Eric Mar, George Iechika-McKinney, Dan Nishijima, and Rhonda Ramirez. The mission and purpose of API FORCE, as identified in its membership booklet, is to: "analyze mainstream political thought and develop progressive ideological alternatives; empower Asian and Pacific Islander communities through education, political participation and grassroots organizing; and support and be a resource for other organizations working for Asian and Pacific Islander empowerment and against racism-4 sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, classism, and oppression in all its forms." API FORCE calls itself a "progressive," mass-based organization, an ideology that is reflected in the language of its mission and purpose and in some of its activities, especially in the electoral arena. In addition to the 1994 anti-immigrant Proposition 187, API FORCE organized around Proposition 209, the anti-affirmative action initiative passed by California voters in 1996; immigrant rights in response to the passage of the 1996 Welfare Reform Bill; and the successful electoral campaign of Tom Ammiano to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Among the five groups, API FORCE works the most within establishment channels. But API FORCE's other activities and Principles of Unity, modeled after the Black Panther Party's ten-point platform, reveal a radical politic, especially in its efforts to promote political education on North Korea and to expose the impact of US militarization on Asian women. Also, one of the points of unity reads, "...We want to democratically transform the U.S. economic system of globalized capitalism and replace it with a truly egalitarian society in which all people can attain their full human potential." While API FORCE has veteran activists, the active membership is mainly in their twenties. There is also a diversity of Asian backgrounds and more women than men in the group. Currently, George lechika-McKinney, Jung Hee Choi, Sun Lee, Rand Quinn, and Sinai Tongol sit on the Leadership Council.

ASIAN!, or Asian Sisters (& Brothers) for Ideas in Action Now!, began in November 1994 in Santa Barbara, California, after students in an Asian feminism class attended a Los Angeles rally protesting Jessica McClintock's failure to pay Chinese garment workers. Diane Fujino, Robyn Rodriguez, and Cheryl Deptowicz established ASIAN! as a radical political group to uplift humanity, with an emphasis on improving conditions facing Asian and Asian American women. As mentioned the group, the name changed to include "brothers," but the focus on women's leadership remained. Given the lack of radical activism in Santa Barbara and in fine with ASIAN!'s belief that systemic oppression underlies and connects multiple issues, ASIAN! has organized political forums and campaigns around, among other topics, garment workers; sex industry; political prisoners, particularly focusing on Puerto Rican POWs and letter writing to California political prisoners; and anti-imperialist struggles in the United States, Philippines, Hawai'i, North and South Korea, Okinawa, Puerto Rico, and Africa. ASIAN! has introduced political issues to the campus community and its membership by bringing prominent radicals to speak on the UCSB campus, including Yuri Kochiyama, Geronimo ji Jaga, Ramona Africa, and Rafael Cancel Miranda. ASIAN! also organized coalitions to oppose attacks on affirmative action by the University of California regents and by Proposition 209, and since 1995, organized to save the fife of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the only political prisoner on death row. Despite a desire to include community members, ASIAN! remains a small, predominantly student group with substantially more women than men and a diverse Asian membership in addition to a few non-Asian members. ACTION, the Asian Pacific Islander Collective to Initiate Opportunities Now!, formed in 1995 to focus on Asian American youth organizing in Los Angeles, primarily through cultural-political work. Under the leadership of founder Jason Nawa as well as Tracy Kiriyama, Sunny Le, and Ryan Yokota, ACTION became an organizing space for recent college graduates, college students, and high school students. The group functions with a non-hierarchical, collective structure, with an emphasis on developing leadership skills, raising political consciousness, and building a group culture and personal relationships among members.

Its radical ideology is reflected in its Principles of Unity, which include community control of institutions; opposition to global capitalism, racism, sexism, and heterosexism; and basic human rights for a people. Through their two Art Attacks, the group used cultural-political work to outreach to youth and publicize community issues. In conjunction with the 1960s and 70s Asian American Movement group, Yellow Brotherhood, ACTION started a tutorial project at Culver City High School, which has served to provide concrete services as well as to fink the youth to the previous generation of activists. While initially located in Little Tokyo, ACTION soon became pan-Asian in membership; about half its members are women.

The Asian Left Forum (ALF) represented the first nationwide meeting of veteran and newer Asian American Leftists in the past couple of decades. Held on May 17, 1998, in Los Angeles, following the "Serve the People" conference on Asian American community activism, this all-day, non-sectarian meeting brought together about 100 activists, double the anticipated attendance, to "strategize radical politics in Asian communities in the United States," with a focus on the struggles of working-class immigrant communities. The ALF called for Asian American Leftists, radicals, and revolutionaries to unite, and its principles of unity identified global capitalism, imperialism, racism, patriarchal domination, and heterosexism as the root causes of oppression. Still, the forum itself focused on a progressive-to-radical agenda. Local chapters in the Bay Area, Los Angeles, and New York have, to varying degrees, continued the work, organizing forums on anti-imperialist struggles in Asia, including Okinawa, Korea, the Philippines, East Timor, and Burma; the Kosovo war; the prison industrial complex; and the role of electoral politics in revolutionary organizing. While the ALF is comprised of diverse membership in terms of age, activist experience, political ideology, gender, ethnic background, and geographic location, the active core is predominantly twenty-something. Jung Hee Choi, Alyssa Kang, Sun Lee, Eric Tang, and Ryan Yokota sit on the National Planning Committee. A second national meeting is planned for early 2000.

Asian Revolutionary Circle (ARC) emerged in Boston in Summer 1998, after its founders, Kye Leung, Meizhu Lui, and Kim Mach, met at the Asian Left Forum in Los Angeles. ARC, initially called Asian Roots and Community, began as a group of liberals, progressives, and radicals who came together to explore issues of identity and "to reclaim our stolen history." But within six months, through struggles over ideology, ARC became increasingly radical and the more liberal members left the group. Its name changed to reflect its new revolutionary politics. Its Ten Point Platform reflects this radical ideology, focusing on self-determination, reclamation of Asian American history, and an end to racism, sexism, heterosexism, class exploitation, and imperialism. ARC holds weekly political study groups for its members, organizes talks on Asian American history and racism in local high schools, raises funds to provide an after-school program and free books on Asian American history to students, invites veteran activists to speak at their meetings, and supports the Chinese Progressive Association in organizing residents to oppose gentrification in Boston's Chinatown. Its focus on Chinatown reflects its commitment to the community as well as its predominantly Chinese membership, although ARC strives to be pan-Asian. Its membership, half of whom are women, is predominantly high school and college students.

Political Assessment of New Radical Organizations

What can an examination of these five organizations tell us about the state of new organizing in radical Asian America? Here we are look for themes, commonalties, and differences among the groups to shed light on the nature of radical Asian American organizing in the conservative 1990s.
Continuing the History of Radical Resistance

Radical groups that emerged in the 1990s have the opportunity to learn from experienced Asian American activists. Though many activists of the 1960s and 70s are no longer active today, there remains a substantial number of veteran activists who maintain a radical ideology, some of whom are active in the Movement today. To varying degrees, younger activists have turned to the veterans to learn from their experiences. API FORCE began through the combined efforts of veteran and newer Asian American activists. Even today, when most of its active membership are in their twenties, the veterans continue to provide an important source of guidance and support. The ALF, though initiated and maintained largely by young activists, was unprecedented in its ability to bring together a sizable number of veteran and newer activists. ARC has consciously sought out veteran Asian activists in the Boston area, organizing speaking engagements by former members of the revolutionary organizations, I Wor Kuen and the League of Revolutionary Struggle. Ten ARC members also traveled to New York City where they met with veteran revolutionaries, many of whom they had never heard of before, including Yuri Kochiyama and Fred Ho. ASIAN! has invited numerous Asian and Pacific Islander radicals to Santa Barbara for public forums accompanied by potlucks and/or political education studies: Yuri Kochiyama, Rev. Michael Yasutake, Mitsuye Yamada, David Monkawa, Fred Ho, Haunani-kay Trask, and Filipino leaders of BAYAN Rafael Baylosis, Rafael "Ka Paeng" Mariano, and Joe Navidad. And in Los Angeles, ACTION has had the opportunity to meet with veteran activists such as former Yellow Brotherhood members Kenwood Jung and Nick Nagatani.

What is clear is that these newer formations are aware of their connection with the past generation of radicals. It is because of the efforts of the previous generation of Asian American activists--for example, via ethnic studies and Movement publications--that the current generation knows some of its radical history. Moreover, the current generation is continuing the effort to uncover the still little known history of revolutionary Asian America. In doing so, the younger activists are seeking the guidance of the experienced activists, drawing inspiration from them, and encouraging the veterans to work with the youth to create change today. As API FORCE states' on their website: "We walk into the new millennium in the footsteps of our ancestors--the railroad builders, miners, anti-imperialist exiles, farmworkers and farmers, picture brides, laundrymen, teachers, cannery and garment workers, union and student activists, and revolutionaries. We acknowledge our Asian and Pacific Islander people's historical continuum of struggle and resistance to oppression in the United States and carry on our work in this proud tradition."
Radical Organizing in the Conservative 1990s

It is important to notice that these groups emerged beginning in the mid- I 990s. While there has been a continuity of political organizing in the US, there are also fluctuations in the strength of the Movement. The mid-1990s, especially in California, represents one of those shifts. Beginning in 1994, the right-wing implemented and California voters passed a series of conservative initiatives designed to roll back the gains of the Civil Rights Movement: Proposition 187 attacked immigrants rights; Propositions - 184 functioned to criminalize and imprison youth, the poor, and people of color; Proposition 209 banned affirmative action; and Proposition 227 banned bilingual education. Because repression breeds resistance, these measures--along with the scheduled state execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal in 1995--generated mass progressive organizing. In this context, API FORCE was established to organize for immigrant rights, affirmative action, and welfare reform. While other factors more directly influenced the creation of ASIAN! (the convergence of its three founders in a UCSB Asian feminism class) and ACTION (the founders' need for organizational space after college), the right-wing initiatives also influenced the formation and early activities of these groups.

 Also in response to the increase in right-wing activity throughout the nation, along with stepped up economic restructuring and neoliberal policies globally, it is our contention that the Movement began a qualitative upswing in early 1998, motion that had been building since the mid-1990s. In 1998 alone, there was an exceptional number of nationwide gatherings of activists in the Asian American community (Serve the People conference on Asian American activism at UCLA and the Asian Left Forum in Los Angeles, both in May 1998), in the African American community (Black Radical Congress in Chicago in June 1998), and on issues of political prisoners and prisons (Jericho '98 march and rally for political prisoners in Washington D.C. in March 1998, Critical Resistance conference on the prison industrial complex at Berkeley in September 1998). Moreover, 1998 represented 100 years of US colonialism in Hawai'i, Guam, Philippines, Puerto Rican, and elsewhere. Related to this, significant activity in the Puerto Rican movement has taken place in 1998 and 1999. Large marches and rallies in multiple cities were organized to protest a century of US imperialism; students shut down the San Juan airport to protest the privatization of the telephone company; unprecedented numbers have been protesting the US military presence on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques since a US bomb killed a civilian in April 1999; and in September 1999, eleven Puerto Rican political prisoners, incarcerated for close to 20 years, were released from prison. Grounding these events in imperialism is significant. One of the important revolutions in contemporary times is the Zapatista struggle in Chiapas, Mexico. And this revolution was kicked off in response to 500 years of Western conquest of Indigenous Peoples. In 1999, the Zapatista revolution inspired students to shut down, for six months at the time of this writing, the largest, public university in Latin America, the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), in response to International Monetary Fund impositions to raise tuition fees, and to fight for the democratization of the university. Also during this period, in Asia and the Pacific Islands, workers and students have organized massive protests against International Monetary Fund austerity measures as well as the massacre in East Timor. It was in this context of increased activism that the Asian Left Forum was organized. And this nationwide gathering inspired the formation of ARC in Boston.

Given the socio-political climate, what does it mean to be radical in the 1990s? The revolutionary fervor that characterized the 1960s and 70s, with its militant actions and socialist and/or revolutionary nationalist ideology, has dissipated. And while revolutionaries continue to be active in the 1990s, the overall nature of the social movements has changed. Today, the radical wing of the Asian American Movement is characterized by groups that critique racism and capitalism and seek to transform social institutions, but do not actively work to build a radical working-class movement or to create a socialist state. Still these groups can be identified as radical because their analysis of society and their practice are rooted in systemic oppression, namely, capitalism, imperialism, racism, sexism and heterosexism. The statement by API FORCE sums up the radical ideology of these new groups: "We ... are committed to building a world of peace and justice, where people's needs come before corporate profits. We envision a new society based on multiculturalism, democracy, mutual respect, and economic and social justice for all."

 Yet contrast this to the Twelve Point Platform of I Wor Kuen (IWK), an early 1970s Asian American group, which explicitly called for socialism, community control of not just institutions but also of land, and preparation "to defend our communities against repression and for revolutionary armed war against the gangsters, businessmen, politicians, and police."

Modeled after the platforms of IWK and the Black Panther Party (BPP), four of the five groups have developed Principles of Unity or platforms that guide their actions. While it is widely known that the BPP influenced many revolutionary groups including IWK, it is little known that' one of the three authors of the BPP's platform is a Japanese American revolutionary who was a high-ranking leader in the BPP (see Richard Aoki interview in this anthology). Moreover, given the increased conservativeness of the 1990s, it is not surprising that none of the current groups have as revolutionary an ideology as IWK. Still what is radical about the platforms of these new formations is their opposition to global capitalism, imperialism, racism, sexism and heterosexism. ASIAN! too explicitly supports this radical ideology in their Guiding Principles. In addition, ACTION, ARC, and API FORCE call for basic human rights for all people, including affordable housing, food, universal health care, a living wage, and a multicultural education, and for environmental justice--the latter being a new demand not identified by IWK or BPP.

In the context of the 1990s, with its conservative mainstream politics and low revolutionary activity, it is not surprising that radical--and not revolutionary--Asian American groups would emerge. After all, it is difficult today to build an Asian-focused revolutionary party. Many of the newer radical activists are not ideologically or organizationally prepared to establish a revolutionary party; many of the veterans who previously were in cadre formations have personal and political differences that continue to preclude their unity; and many young people, new to politics, are not ready to join a revolutionary group. Moreover, given that multiracial or predominantly White revolutionary groups exist today, many of which include a few Asian members, some would argue that no revolutionary Asian organization exists today because there is no need for nation- or race-based organizations. As global capitalism expands and the meaning of national boundaries becomes less relevant, activists will no longer organize around nation- or race-specific formations. We disagree with this argument. By contrast, that these five radical Asian-specific groups have emerged in the 1990s and that their ideology embraces the need for API community control of institutions and resources points to the continuing significance of nation- or race-based organizing. Certainly, most activists today agree that one's analysis must be international in focus. But this does not preclude working towards control of institutions, resources, and land bases by communities or sovereign nations in conjunction with, or as a step towards, international socialism.

While broadly defined as radical, the five groups do self-identify with somewhat different ideologies. Most notable is that API FORCE consciously chose to organize a progressive organization, even though many of its initial members were radicals. Even the Bay Area, one of the most politically conscious areas of the country, lacked a progressive API presence in the 1990s. So API FORCE believed that broad base support was needed before building a revolutionary party. In addition, ARC is the only new Asian-specific organization to use the term "revolutionary" in their name. The other groups have "safe" names that in fact do not reflect their radical politics. Compared to other groups, ARC uses more revolutionary language.

 For example, ARC calls its statement a "Ten-Point Platform," after the BPP and IWK; by contrast, ACTION, ALF, and API FORCE use the more generalized language of "Principles of Unity." But in most ways, ARC's practice does not appear any more revolutionary than the other groups. It is our contention that underlying these expressed differences, the ideologies--and especially the practice--of these five groups are actually quite similar.

Changing Social Realities
When activists talk about changing social realities, they think of change at two levels. At one level, activists work to challenge oppressive institutions and systems in order to improve the quality of people's lives. At another level, activists themselves get transformed as they participate in the collective struggle for justice. Through the grassroots movement, activists learn organizing and leadership skills, sharpen their political analyses, expand their knowledge base, and significantly, grow in their ability to interact with people in humane ways while striving to build the new social relationships needed in a non-capitalist society. Change at either level is no easy task. But these new groups have attempted to create social change at both levels.

At the societal level, API FORCE works to challenge institutional power through the legal and political systems. After the passage of 1996 Welfare Reform Bill, which affected low-income Asian Americans, API FORCE embarked on a long-term campaign for economic and social justice. As part of this, they organized to re-elect Tom Ammiano, an openly gay, White progressive community activist, to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Here API FORCE differs from liberal groups in its criticism of both the Democrats and Republicans, between whom API FORCE sees few differences. As a progressive-to-radical grassroots organization, API FORCE does not view electoral politics as their main political strategy or ultimate goal, but advocates that "electoral politics, as in everything we do, should be used as a tool to build a stronger, more unified left and progressive movement. API FORCE's support for Ammiano was part of an overall strategy to gain economic justice based on Ammiano's strong support of programs providing food, affordable housing, and living wages to the poor. As API FORCE wrote in their 1998 newsletter: "Organizing around issues, rather than individuals, will help give more focus to broader concerns of social justice and change. However, it is not enough to simply push for yes or no votes. Without also bringing left and progressive ideas into electoral organizing, a strong grassroots base will not be sustainable after election day. ,8 After getting a politician committed to food, housing, and wages elected as President of the Board of Supervisors, API FORCE moved into Phase II of its economic justice campaign: Getting a food stamp program written into the 2000 budget.

API FORCE members gained much organizing experience through the Ammiano, campaign. By reaching out to people on the streets, they learned how to communicate with people--what to say, what language to use, and to whom to speak: "The people who responded most to what we had to say about affordable housing and food stamps were mothers shopping with their children, the elderly and young adults struggling to pay the rent. We gained the most support from these kinds of folks, talking with them about issues that affect all of our lives."' They also faced sharp criticism for supporting Ammiano over less progressive Asian American candidates. But this struggle exposed the politics of different groups and API FORCE discovered who their political allies were.

Like API FORCE, ASIAN! also worked through the grassroots electoral process to organize against Proposition 209, the anti-affirmative action initiative passed by California voters in 1996.

 In part due to the ALF--from the networking developed there to the Forum's inspiration to strong criticism of it--noteworthy Asian American political formations and projects have emerged, including two anthology projects on the radical Asian American Movement, the Asian American roundtable at the Critical Resistance conference, ARC, and the Ad Hoc committee in New York City that organized two panels of veteran and younger activists discussing the revolutionary Asian American Movement. But in other ways, the ALF has faced serious problems in building a radical or revolutionary Asian American presence. Perhaps its most significant problem is its lack of vision and purpose. At its May 1998 meeting, the ALF was unable to define its ideology or even to be clear that it was a Left formation. While' its Principles of Unity are clearly radical, the group's unwillingness to discuss a working definition of "Left"--which some define as socialist and others as any politic left of liberal--resulted in a lack of ideological clarity. In addition, the ALF suffers from a confusion over its organizational structure. Though the National Planning Council agreed that the ALF would function as a "united front" and not a network or cadre organization, there is confusion among the general Asian American Left, and even among the ALF leadership, as to the function that the ALF should serve. These problems help to explain why the ALF is struggling to organize its first follow-up meeting to the initial forum.

The local chapters of the ALF have been more active than the nationwide body. Even so the locals, which function with great deal of regional autonomy, have done less work than hoped for over the past year and a half. Still their programs have served to raise political consciousness. In the Bay Area, the activists organized political forums on the role of electoral politics in revolutionary organizing, on student movements, and on examining the role of non-profit organizations in creating social change. The Los Angeles ALF has organized five forums: one on the labor movement; two on international solidarity work around anti-imperialist struggles in Okinawa, Korea, the Philippines, Burma, and East Timor; one of the war in Kosovo; and one on prison issues, focusing on the Juvenile Justice Initiative in California. In addition, the Los Angeles ALF worked with the local chapters of the Black Radical Congress and New Raza Left to form a People of Color Coalition Against the War. New York City ALF has organized forums on the prison industrial complex and about young Korean, Filipino, and South Asian activists working international solidarity movements. The focus of much of ALF's work has not been on educating the public per se, but rather on studying methods of organizing. For example, Los Angeles activists explored ways people can conduct international solidarity work, and Bay Area activists discussed the role of electoral politics and non-profits-in radical organizing. As such, the forums serve primarily as internal studies, though they are open to the public.

A look at the diversity of ALF's programming reveals its multi-issue approach, which is also reflected in ASIAN! and, to a lesser extent, in the other groups. These radical groups focus simultaneously on multiple political issues (e.g., worker's rights, anti-imperialist struggles worldwide, the prison industrial complex) because of their ideological belief that these issues are interconnected and rooted in capitalism and imperialism, in addition to racism. Thus, these groups, to varying degrees, find themselves tackling multiple issues simultaneously and striving to expose the underlying systemic causes.

In addition, the five groups oppose sexism in society and within the Movement and work to promote women's leadership. ASIAN! began as a women's group to provide an organizing space for women to develop leadership skills in an environment free of--or less affected by--male dominance.

 Even though men have joined, women, in theory and practice, have the primary leadership roles; there have been few, if any, problems with sexism within the organization; and they implemented a policy that an Asian women (alone or in conjunction with another member) must represent the group at public events. API FORCE established a Women's Collective in 1998 when they learned about sexual harassment occurring in a progressive API community organization. In addition to establishing a sexual harassment policy, API FORCE initiated an open letter, endorsed by other API groups, calling progressive activists and organizations to address sexism in the workplace and in the movement for social justice. Though currently inactive, the Women's Collective also published a women's issue of the 'zine, The World is Yours, to create a space for API women to voice their ideas. The ALF also mandated that at least one women will be among the two local representatives to the National Planning Council. The five groups also oppose heterosexisn-4 though their sparse programming on gay and lesbian issues has resulted in few open queers among their membership.

These radical formations also have serious shortcomings. AU of the groups suffer from small numbers of highly dedicated activists--no doubt, in part, a reflection of the times. Despite many activists' realization that effective organizing can be accomplished with a few committed organizers--quality is indeed more important than quantity--the small numbers do put a strain on the campaigns and on the activists themselves. In addition, groups like ASIAN! and ACTION suffer from fairly high turn-over rates. ASIAN!'s membership is affected by the nature of campus-based organizing--students often join political groups late in their college career and then graduate--and because, unlike major cities, most students leave the Santa Barbara area after graduating. ACTION has had three distinctive generations of activists in the four years of its existence, largely because after gaining community organizing training in ACTION, they move onto other projects and organizations. As a result, these groups must constantly focus on recruitment--and retention--efforts. Moreover, it is difficult for the groups to advance their politics when there are few stable, advanced members among the constant influx of new, inexperienced members.

Moreover, the overwhelming presence of college students and professionals--and the limited participation by the lower-echelon working class--affects the practice and commitment of members. Though the resources of students and professionals enable them to work for social change, their middle-class status and options allow them an out when the work gets too demanding. The predominant student membership of ARC also helps explain why they believe that "the youth will be in the proletarian vanguard," in contrast to the emphasis placed on the working class by revolutionary socialist groups. Still, many of the activities of these groups reflect their ideological commitment to the immigrant and working-class poor. For example, API FORCE is pushing for a food stamp program, ARC works in Boston's Chinatown, and ACTION, ALF, and ASIAN! have supported working-class labor struggles and issues of prisons and political prisoners.

Finally, the lack of ideological clarity in all these groups presents problems. As Fred Ho noted: "In fighting the system, the question of ideology is key: If you're opposed to sexism, homophobia, worker exploitation, state repression, racism etc., then what do you replace these with? What is the goal of activism: Reform or revolution? What is fundamental. to making real, systemic social change: Changing political officials, legislation and media representation, or political and economic power via ownership and control over the means of production?"'

 Within ASIAN!, a conscious decision was made to be opposed to systemic oppression without advocating a replacement system such as socialism because few students are politically ready to join a socialist group. This decision has proven correct for work on their particular college campus where radical organizing is sparse. But as members develop politically, they begin to ask the same questions posed above by Fred Ho. And ASIAN!'s ideology is unable to provide the answers. Likewise, the lack of ideological clarity is a major reason why the ALF has had difficulty moving forward, and also helps to explain the retention problems within ACTION. API FORCE's lack of ideological clarity seems to present less of a problem, possibly because as the least radical of the five groups, API FORCE members struggle less over radical alternatives. Within ARC, a struggle over ideology six months ago resulted in the group embracing a more radical politic and in driving out half of the membership. Though it is too early to assess the impact of this change, ARC members do believe that a smaller group of committed radicals will create more effective social change than a larger group of liberals.

To increase ideological clarity and radicalize its members, ARC and ASIAN! have implemented regular political education studies into its meetings. ARC has weekly study groups in which veteran activists guide the group in grasping Marxism, Leninism, and Mao Zedong Thought. In addition to its public forums, ASIAN! has political study sessions once a month during the academic year and more rigorous studies during the summer. ASIAN! also requires that new members attend a series of study sessions to became familiarized with ASIAN!'s politics. ACTION implements its political education primarily through its leadership training, where readings introduce members to race, class, and gender issues. Eventually, at the end of the training, members are introduced to basic Maoist readings such as "On Practice" and "On Contradiction" that help guide their practice. ALF and API FORCE gain political education through their public forums.

Despite their shortcomings, these groups have been able to conscienitize their members and, to varying degrees, their communities. They have also made some concrete changes to better their communities. And in the process of working to create change, the members have learned organizing skiffs and gained self-confidence, acquired some ideological training, and have tried to grow as human beings and as political activists. What is commendable is that these activists, mostly in their twenties, have been struggling to effect social change despite the conservativeness of the times and the vacuum of revolutionary leadership.
Organizational Structure

The organizational structure of the five groups resembles that of the mass-based organizations of the 1960s and 70s more than that of Asian American cadre formations of a generation ago. Today's Asian American radical groups are structured to allow flexibility--so members can be involved according to their time availability, commitment, or desire. It seems the groups need to be flexible in order to retain their membership. If they demanded higher discipline-including giving high priority to the group's work, active participation in planning activities, attendance at all or most meetings, and demands for a revolutionary consciousness and practice-many members would leave. Certainly, there are multiracial or predominantly )White revolutionary groups that require high levels of discipline, but no such revolutionary Asian American group exists today. Among today's radical groups, there are two main forms for organizing: The smaller groups operate on collective leadership and the larger groups have a more delineated structure.

 As small, localized formations, ARC, ACTION, and ASIAN! operate based on collective decision-making, with high levels of democracy. These groups believe that the collective can accomplish more than the individual. Also, the collective process helps members feel a sense of "ownership" for the group--that they are responsible for the successes or failures of the group and that they can contribute to its activities and direction. These groups believe in the need for democracy and for enabling members to voice their opinions. The structure of these groups match their objectives of building the leadership of youth, of women, and of APIs. They recognize that internalized sexism, internalized racism, and cultural values such as respect for authority can create obstacles to speaking out. With encouragement and practice, many members gain the confidence and skills to formulate political ideas and articulate them. The collective operations of these groups also help to foster closer social relationship among members, as do their weekly meetings.

It is important to recognize that the small size of these groups, usually less than a dozen members, makes it possible to operate based on collective leadership and collective decision-making. ASIAN! knows this from experience. After the defeat of Proposition 209 triggered a desire for action, ASIAN!'s membership more than doubled to close to 30 people. ASIAN! continued to try to operate based on collective leadership because members were reluctant to implement any hierarchical structure. The results were disastrous. Members were generally frustrated with the slowness of decision making and bored with all the talking. It was hard to keep track of who was responsible for various tasks, making accountability difficult to manage. Another frustration was that the larger size made it difficult to develop the personal relationships and closeness that helps build group unity. Though members are still reluctant to move away from collective decision-making, at a retreat to assess its internal functioning, ASIAN! decided that should it get large again, it would need to quickly implement an administrative committee that would be charged with making sure decisions are implemented and holding members accountable. The entire group would still make major decisions. An unfair hierarchy could be avoided by opening the administrative committee to anyone who is willing to do the work. Part of ASIAN!'s reluctance to implement a less, collective structure stemmed from their misunderstanding of collective leadership. They thought, as many people do, that collective leadership means everyone must participate equally and have equal influence in the group. But as George Iechika-McKinney noted about API FORCE, "Hierarchy is based on level of involvement. We want to acknowledge that people who do more work should be valued." This statement recognizes that within any volunteer organization, some people are more willing or able to take on responsibility and leadership. And these people will have more influence on the direction and activities of the group; that is, they possess more "legitimate power" based on, among other factors, commitment, hard work, and political experience. What does need to be guarded against is when individuals gain "unearned power"--influence ascribed because of, for example, social status or friendship--or when individuals are shut out of leadership positions because of structural forces such as sexism or the lack of childcare. But sometimes it is difficult to disentangle legitimate power from unearned power. In ASIAN!, the most politically experienced person is also the only professor among its predominantly student membership. And in API FORCE, where highly committed members have become friends, there have been times when organizational work was done through friendships rather than through organizational mechanisms. Here, API FORCE, ASIAN!, and ACTION are aware of internal power dynamics and have changed their structures or otherwise worked to reduce unearned hierarchies.

These new radical formations operate with greater flexibility compared to the revolutionary Asian American organizations of the 1960s and 70s. They try to find ways for members with varying amounts of time and commitments to be involved. The need for flexibility reflects the conservatism of the times as well as the professionalization of activism. Certainly, the political fervor of the 1960s and 70s helped to popularize activism; similar conditions do not exist today. Plus, increased economic pressures mean that students must work longer hours and take larger course loads to avoid paying high tuition fees for additional semesters. What then drops off is student activism. Concomitantly, Asian American college graduates have greater opportunities to work in professional arenas, at least compared to a generation ago. Consequently, Asian American student activists often seek professional ways to express their political concerns--by working in social service agencies, non-profit community organizations, and in the cultural, educational, and legal arenas. This becomes problematic when this work replaces direct participation in the radical, grassroots movement. This can occur when a lawyer's activism is limited to pro bono work, when a cultural worker produces political poetry but fails to help organize for social change, or when one's social service or union job eats up all one's time so there is no direct engagement in the radical, grassroots movement. No doubt, the weakened state of the radical movements also makes professionalized political work more attractive. Frequently, young activists complain that no revolutionary organization exists that they want to join. Given the demands on people and the limited outlets for radical and revolutionary organizing, the radical organizations examined in this paper find that if their membership requirements are too high, members drop out. By contrast, some members leave these groups because they are looking for more advanced politics. Thus, it becomes necessary to create a variety of spaces, including revolutionary organizations, for Asian American activists.

One positive effect of the flexible approach of these new organizations is seen in their effort to develop the types of social relationships that do not reproduce the oppressive relations displayed under capitalism. Like in the past, political organizing today leads to friendships based on similar values, commitments, and activities. But today's groups are less harsh in their criticisms and less focused on determining the correct political fine. This aids in building new social relationships, ones that will form of the basis of a new non-capitalist society. But today's new groups tend to err in the other direction--of not holding each other accountable to high standards and not giving enough constructive criticism--which tends to undermine the effectiveness of political organizing and individual growth.

What is needed is a revolutionary wing of the Asian American Movement. If we are correct that the current period represents the beginning of a qualitative upswing in the movements for social change, then the time is ripe to build the infrastructure to promote that growth. Activists will create those changes and, in turn, -a changed environment, with mass popular support and revolutionary leadership, will facilitate advances in the Movement. Community-based progressive forces and radical formations already exist in the Asian American community. But we need to build an Asian-focused revolutionary organization(s). As evidenced by the efforts of the ALF, this is an ambitious and difficult task. But it is called "the struggle" for a reason. To create this force, activists will need to intensify their commitment to social justice, reduce their reliance on professionalized activism, and increase their willingness to sacrifice for the future generations. This new revolutionary group might be worked out through the ALF, if it can overcome its problems.

Otherwise, activists will need to develop a new formation that has ideological clarity, revolutionary politics, and clear goals and organizational structure. It will likely take the combined efforts of newer and veteran activists, the latter of whom will need to let go of old interpersonal conflicts and even outdated ideological disputes to achieve a principled unity. And it will be important for any new formations to replicate the models of organizing that promote women's leadership, as happened in the League of Revolutionary Struggle and is occurring in many of the new radical groups. But this new formation win also need to incorporate a wider range of the community than the students, professionals, and heterosexuals now dominating the radical Asian American Movement. If Asian revolutionaries can accomplish this, they will push forward not only the Asian American Movement, but also the entire US Left. And the committed youth and women of these new radical organizations are in a prime position to facilitate this motion.

 1. See Jeremy Blecher & Tim Costello, Global Village or Global Pillage: Economic Reconstruction From the Bottom (Boston: South End Press, 1994); Ward Churchill & Jim Vander Wall, Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret War Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement (Boston: South End Press, 1988); Michael Om i & Howard Winant, Racial Formation in the United States, From the 1960s to the 1990s (NY: Routledge, 1994); Paul Ong, Edna Bonacich & Lucie Cheng, "The Political Economy of Capitalist Restructuring and the New Asian Immigration," in Ong, Bonacich & Cheng (Eds.), The New Asian Immigration in Los Angeles and Global Restructuring (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994, pp. 3-35).

2. Although there is no single definition, we use the term "radical" to refer to the root cause of a problem particularly capitalism and its global extension, imperialism, as well as racism, sexism, and heterosexism. Radicals analyze problems and devise strategies for combating systemic oppression. "Revolutionaries" go further than radicals in not only naming the problematic system, but also in advocating a replacement system such as socialism. By contrast, "liberal" groups tend to focus on the immediate problem without connecting it to larger structural forces. From a radical perspective, liberals are problematic because they are swayed by their own self-interest (see Mao, "Combat Liberalism"). "Progressives" lie in between liberals and radicals. While they see race, gender, and class inequalities, their solutions often do not embody opposition to capitalism per se. Certainly, these categories are nuanced and complex, and an individual may not fit neatly within any one grouping. To give a concrete, yet simplified, illustration: Liberals oppose the low pay and difficult work conditions of garment workers, but only to the extent that paying higher wages does not significantly increase their clothing costs. Progressives oppose race, gender, and class inequalities, but it is radicals who advocate that labor exploitation is inevitable under capitalism, an economic system that requires low wages in order to increase the profits of the few big business owners. And revolutionaries argue that the only way to end labor exploitation is to build a socialist or communist society. Here we are examining one's political ideology and practice, which goes beyond the tactics one may use. We do not identify political orientations based on tactics because people with different -politics can use the same tactics (e.g., civil disobedience). Thus, the militancy of a tactic can be decoupled from the analysis of the problem.

3. We are grateful to the following people for providing interviews, information, and materials about their organizations: Betty Chan, Caroline Choi, Sumaya Dinglasan, George lechika-McKinney, Don Kim, Nadia Kim, Soudary Kittivong, Sun Lee, Meizhu Lui, Daniel Magpali, Mo Nishida, Robyn Rodriguez, Jee Ryu, Eric Tang, and Ryan Yokota. We appreciate insightful feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript from Betty Chan, Fred Ho, George lechika-McKinney, Nadia Kim, Sun Lee, Mo Nishida, and Ryan Yokota. Thanks also go to the numerous activists with whom we have had informal discussions.

4. The FBI's COINTELPRO succeeded in murdering radical activists, imprisoning them, scaring them out of the Movement, and creating such a disruption in the revolutionary movements, especially in the African community, that many organizations collapsed and activists left the Movement. In addition, internal conflicts, familial and work demands, and limited resources undermined the revolutionary movement. By the mid-1970s, the visible revolutionary Asian American Movement had mainly dissolved. But Asian revolutionaries continued on throughout the 1980s in formations like the League of Revolutionary Struggle, which was two-third people of color, and to the present as independents or members of predominantly White or multiracial organizations.

5. While the Zapatistas struck on January 1, 1994, to protest the North American Free Trade Agreement, the original decision to start the armed phase began in 1992, with the commemoration of 500 years of conquest (Medea Benjamin, "Interview: Subcommandante Marcos," in Elaine Katzenberger (Ed.), First World Ha Ha Ha! The Zapatista Challe , San Francisco: City Lights, 1995, pp. 57-70).

6. "An Introduction to APT FORCE," APT FORCE's website, wwwapi-force.org.

7. "The Role of Electoral Politics in Progressive Organizing: Issues Not Candidates," The Force newsletter of APT FORCE, 1998, 1.

8. ibid.

9. "Economic Justice for San Francisco," from APT FORCE's website, www.api-force.org.

10. Fred Ho, "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly-But-Necessary," in the present anthology.