What do you think?
Rate this book
Gang Politics: Revolution, Repression, and Crime
In three taut essays, Kristian Williams examines our society’s understanding of social and political violence, what gets romanticized, misunderstood, or muddled. He explores the complex intersections between “gangs” of all sorts—cops and criminals, Proud Boys and antifa, Panthers and skinheads—arguing that government and criminality are intimately related, often sharing critical features. As society becomes more polarized and the conviction that things are only going to get worse, and more violent, grows, William’s analysis is a crucial corrective to our simple, unquestioned ideas about the role violence might or should play in our social struggles.
144 pages, Paperback
Published July 5, 2022
11 people are currently reading
1879 people want to read
About the author
Kristian Williams
18 books46 followersmember of Rose City Copwatch in Portland, Oregon, and of the National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
May 4, 2022
Kristian Williams' Gang Politics is an interesting collection of three essays discussing some of the intricacies and complexities of behaviors and politics of various gangs, mostly in the USA. The author makes clear that he does not claim to cover all or most of these topics in the short text, but I did learn quite a bit of nuanced information that we don't often hear about gangs and other groups that can behave like gangs. Williams' makes it clear that despite the racist USAmerican (and likely elsewhere) association between the term "gang" and poor/working class Black and Brown communities, there are many gangs of many stripes including the police who often act as a state sponsored gang.
Robert Evans writes a short foreword for the text that was interesting to read because of how he discusses violence. I have listened to some of his various podcasts and it's well known that he loves guns (I am not a gun person but am not anti-gun either.) So, seeing him talk specifically about how raw force is usually not the answer is important. It's not that he has never acknowledged this on podcasts- he has- but seeing it written in this way here is fitting. I am a little uneasy about a white dude giving a foreword for another white dude's book on gang politics given how much the term gang is weaponized against black and brown folks. I do think they both do their part to focus on white gangs as well including some skinheads, the Proud Boys, and even some iterations of antifa who don't check the toxic masculinity inside their groups.
The first essay- The Other Side of the COIN: Counterinsurgency and Community Policing- is a bit dry at times but still very interesting in its exploration of how gangs threaten state power and some of the ways that states use counterproductive and unethical means to reclaim that power. The next essay is where I was hooked. Gangs, States, and Insurgencies offers many specific examples of gangs roles in their communities. It does not paint a false perfectly rosy picture to combat the stereotypes of all gangs existing purely for violence and clout. It instead describes the complicated and often political nature of gangs for whom drugs and violence may play a part, but also who did a great many constructive things for their neighborhoods that often made them a far bigger threat to the state. I did not know that many gangs of today started "as protective measures against racist violence." I had heard of truces occurring before and during the L.A. Riots in 1992 when another group of truces occurred during the recent uprisings after the murder of George Floyd, but before that I was relatively unaware of the specifics and how truces in order to unite gangs stretched back before either of those.
It came as no surprise to me that police did as much as possible to sow discord between gangs who cooperated with one another just as they did with more well known social justice movements. The details in this essay show clearly that, if attacking gangs was truly about stopping violence, protecting communities, etc, cops wouldn't have been doing everything in their power to stop gangs from cooperating. There are a great many instances of where gangs were successfully working out their differences and contributing to their communities such as with free breakfast programs, agreed upon principles of nonagression, tangible reductions in homicide and violence rates, involvement in politics, etc, only to be fractured by police infiltration and deliberately reinvigorating of old or fabricated conflicts. There are also examples of how a focus on capitalism and working with police corrupted the gangs core principles, leading to protection rackets.
In Street Fights, Gang Wars, and Insurrections: Proud Boys vs Antifa (vs Police,) Williams discusses these groups' gang politics, their huge differences and occasional similarities, and their histories and tactics. There is also examination of skinhead culture including the stereotypical neonazi and racist skinheads as well as apolitical and antiracist skinheads like SHARPs and RASH. This was a primer to lead into Anti-Racist Action and Anti-Fascist Action (aka Antifa or AntEEfa as everyone now insists on pronouncing it) groups of today. There is also a lot of nuanced discussion here. Williams examines the need to meet fascists with a variety of tactics including force while also discussing how force itself can become the star of the show rather than an occasional tactic. There are discussions of how the decentralized nature of Antifa as an idea rather than a group like the Proud Boys with a very strong hierarchy can be both a strength and a curse. There is great variety between chapters and people who identify as antifa and these can be a great things, especially when they design and use tactics best fitting each event and area. But, if a group bases their organizing around machismo, street fights, and reflecting that dynamic inward, they can end up as an authoritarian structure that does not allow for disagreement, growth, or the safety of marginalized people who are or want to be involved.
There is also a history of the strange dynamics of the proud boys, how white men like Gavin McInnis with clear white supremacist and fascist backgrounds managed to convince people that they were somehow post racial, including men of color in their groups rallying around "Western Culture" and "traditional values" instead of (directly saying) race. Despite some leaders openly denouncing men of color and/or gay men from participating, the group remains multiracial, though skewed white for obvious reasons. Proud boys' targeting of Antifa has ended up resembling some of the street fights of racist skinhead groups and traditional street gangs all the way down to their uniforms. Police have also been shown to be cooperative and/or full members of the Proud Boys, though mistrust of law enforcement came later.
All of this history is wrapped up with various analyses that I will leave for the book. But, I liked the nuanced way that Williams discussed the dynamics and tactics of Antifa. I wasn't interested in a book that painted a picture of two one dimensional groups in a perfect war where one side only does bad things and the other is perfect. The book and essays are also well organized and easy to follow even when they get heavy due to William's outlining and summarizing of his points. The postscript offers a telling summary. I normally do not quote from ARCs because they sometimes have text changes, but I think this quote is one that would remain in the book:
"A genuinely anarchist society would likely be, on the whole, pacifist. If we want to eliminate coercion from our social relations, it follows that the role of violence- personal or institutional- would be reduced to infinitesimal levels and likely condemned (or at least regretted) when it does occur. However, to build that world, we must act in this world. The process of change will sometimes entail violence, if only to protect peaceable people from police raids and death squads. This introduces an irresolvable paradox: the means required to build a just society may not be suited to that society...
Violence should, I think, always be understood as morally compromising and politically problematic, as well as physically dangerous and psychologically damaging- even when absolutely necessary. It should therefore only be organized with the utmost care..."
I had to cut that down for the sake of this review, but the whole section is even better. I think this book could be a very important tool for anyone's organizing, but especially those whose organizing involves violent struggle and a tendency towards toxic masculinity or to attract the toxically masculine. I would like to read more takes like this rather than some of the one dimensional defenses of groups or tactics across all scenarios.
This was also posted to my blog.
Robert Evans writes a short foreword for the text that was interesting to read because of how he discusses violence. I have listened to some of his various podcasts and it's well known that he loves guns (I am not a gun person but am not anti-gun either.) So, seeing him talk specifically about how raw force is usually not the answer is important. It's not that he has never acknowledged this on podcasts- he has- but seeing it written in this way here is fitting. I am a little uneasy about a white dude giving a foreword for another white dude's book on gang politics given how much the term gang is weaponized against black and brown folks. I do think they both do their part to focus on white gangs as well including some skinheads, the Proud Boys, and even some iterations of antifa who don't check the toxic masculinity inside their groups.
The first essay- The Other Side of the COIN: Counterinsurgency and Community Policing- is a bit dry at times but still very interesting in its exploration of how gangs threaten state power and some of the ways that states use counterproductive and unethical means to reclaim that power. The next essay is where I was hooked. Gangs, States, and Insurgencies offers many specific examples of gangs roles in their communities. It does not paint a false perfectly rosy picture to combat the stereotypes of all gangs existing purely for violence and clout. It instead describes the complicated and often political nature of gangs for whom drugs and violence may play a part, but also who did a great many constructive things for their neighborhoods that often made them a far bigger threat to the state. I did not know that many gangs of today started "as protective measures against racist violence." I had heard of truces occurring before and during the L.A. Riots in 1992 when another group of truces occurred during the recent uprisings after the murder of George Floyd, but before that I was relatively unaware of the specifics and how truces in order to unite gangs stretched back before either of those.
It came as no surprise to me that police did as much as possible to sow discord between gangs who cooperated with one another just as they did with more well known social justice movements. The details in this essay show clearly that, if attacking gangs was truly about stopping violence, protecting communities, etc, cops wouldn't have been doing everything in their power to stop gangs from cooperating. There are a great many instances of where gangs were successfully working out their differences and contributing to their communities such as with free breakfast programs, agreed upon principles of nonagression, tangible reductions in homicide and violence rates, involvement in politics, etc, only to be fractured by police infiltration and deliberately reinvigorating of old or fabricated conflicts. There are also examples of how a focus on capitalism and working with police corrupted the gangs core principles, leading to protection rackets.
In Street Fights, Gang Wars, and Insurrections: Proud Boys vs Antifa (vs Police,) Williams discusses these groups' gang politics, their huge differences and occasional similarities, and their histories and tactics. There is also examination of skinhead culture including the stereotypical neonazi and racist skinheads as well as apolitical and antiracist skinheads like SHARPs and RASH. This was a primer to lead into Anti-Racist Action and Anti-Fascist Action (aka Antifa or AntEEfa as everyone now insists on pronouncing it) groups of today. There is also a lot of nuanced discussion here. Williams examines the need to meet fascists with a variety of tactics including force while also discussing how force itself can become the star of the show rather than an occasional tactic. There are discussions of how the decentralized nature of Antifa as an idea rather than a group like the Proud Boys with a very strong hierarchy can be both a strength and a curse. There is great variety between chapters and people who identify as antifa and these can be a great things, especially when they design and use tactics best fitting each event and area. But, if a group bases their organizing around machismo, street fights, and reflecting that dynamic inward, they can end up as an authoritarian structure that does not allow for disagreement, growth, or the safety of marginalized people who are or want to be involved.
There is also a history of the strange dynamics of the proud boys, how white men like Gavin McInnis with clear white supremacist and fascist backgrounds managed to convince people that they were somehow post racial, including men of color in their groups rallying around "Western Culture" and "traditional values" instead of (directly saying) race. Despite some leaders openly denouncing men of color and/or gay men from participating, the group remains multiracial, though skewed white for obvious reasons. Proud boys' targeting of Antifa has ended up resembling some of the street fights of racist skinhead groups and traditional street gangs all the way down to their uniforms. Police have also been shown to be cooperative and/or full members of the Proud Boys, though mistrust of law enforcement came later.
All of this history is wrapped up with various analyses that I will leave for the book. But, I liked the nuanced way that Williams discussed the dynamics and tactics of Antifa. I wasn't interested in a book that painted a picture of two one dimensional groups in a perfect war where one side only does bad things and the other is perfect. The book and essays are also well organized and easy to follow even when they get heavy due to William's outlining and summarizing of his points. The postscript offers a telling summary. I normally do not quote from ARCs because they sometimes have text changes, but I think this quote is one that would remain in the book:
"A genuinely anarchist society would likely be, on the whole, pacifist. If we want to eliminate coercion from our social relations, it follows that the role of violence- personal or institutional- would be reduced to infinitesimal levels and likely condemned (or at least regretted) when it does occur. However, to build that world, we must act in this world. The process of change will sometimes entail violence, if only to protect peaceable people from police raids and death squads. This introduces an irresolvable paradox: the means required to build a just society may not be suited to that society...
Violence should, I think, always be understood as morally compromising and politically problematic, as well as physically dangerous and psychologically damaging- even when absolutely necessary. It should therefore only be organized with the utmost care..."
I had to cut that down for the sake of this review, but the whole section is even better. I think this book could be a very important tool for anyone's organizing, but especially those whose organizing involves violent struggle and a tendency towards toxic masculinity or to attract the toxically masculine. I would like to read more takes like this rather than some of the one dimensional defenses of groups or tactics across all scenarios.
This was also posted to my blog.
June 29, 2022
Actually 4.5 stars, but Goodreads isn't good at math.
I've been reading Williams' work since Our Enemies in Blue and have enjoyed almost everything he's written. His books are well researched (545 end notes in a 121 page book) and a perfect mix of theory and story telling. I'm amazed at how much he fit in such a small book.
The only thing I had a slight issue with is that as well researched as it is it seems like that's where just about all his knowledge comes from, as opposed to actual experience. I don't know about the first two chapters because I don't have much experiences with the police/feds/Black Panthers or skinhead culture, but when he talks about Antifa and the Proud Boys it's pretty obvious he's done much more reading about them than fighting with them.
Read Gang Politics though, it will only take a few days and you won't regret it.
I've been reading Williams' work since Our Enemies in Blue and have enjoyed almost everything he's written. His books are well researched (545 end notes in a 121 page book) and a perfect mix of theory and story telling. I'm amazed at how much he fit in such a small book.
The only thing I had a slight issue with is that as well researched as it is it seems like that's where just about all his knowledge comes from, as opposed to actual experience. I don't know about the first two chapters because I don't have much experiences with the police/feds/Black Panthers or skinhead culture, but when he talks about Antifa and the Proud Boys it's pretty obvious he's done much more reading about them than fighting with them.
Read Gang Politics though, it will only take a few days and you won't regret it.
February 3, 2023
1. Police use counterinsurgency tactics from Iraq and Afghanistan to control gangs, after the army first learnt from police.
2. When gangs fight, murder rates go up. When things are in equilibrium, murder rates go down. Some enlightened leaders try to reform the gangs to do more legitimate business, but it’s just not possible due to the inherent structure of the organisation and the people in them.
3. Police sometimes disturb the ‘good’ gangs such as those who tried to protect black shops during the Black Life Matter protests and subsequent riots.
4. Proud boys and Antifa are both gangs. Proud boys have the police’s sympathy and acted as security during Trump’s rallies. Then they stormed the capital when he lost.
It seems to me no way for us to get rid of gang crime according to the author… maybe that’s just life.
4 stars because it’s too short.
2. When gangs fight, murder rates go up. When things are in equilibrium, murder rates go down. Some enlightened leaders try to reform the gangs to do more legitimate business, but it’s just not possible due to the inherent structure of the organisation and the people in them.
3. Police sometimes disturb the ‘good’ gangs such as those who tried to protect black shops during the Black Life Matter protests and subsequent riots.
4. Proud boys and Antifa are both gangs. Proud boys have the police’s sympathy and acted as security during Trump’s rallies. Then they stormed the capital when he lost.
It seems to me no way for us to get rid of gang crime according to the author… maybe that’s just life.
4 stars because it’s too short.
June 22, 2022
A really engaging collection of three essays about gangs, their politics, and engagements with power and relations to the state. I haven’t really read anything on this topic (with the exception of a book about the Yakuza in college) and I found it to be surprisingly exciting. I wasn’t expecting so much information in regard to the police… Wow. All I can say is read it for yourself. I don’t want to prejudice your opinion by giving away the findings of the book. I also appreciate the copious endnotes in this slim volume, you can tell the author put quite a bit of time and effort into researching the topic.
October 19, 2024
a brief introduction into gangs in america, interesting.
probably much more can be written and it would be still interesting and useful.
good book, the only negative i'd point at is that at times i felt the (non)story did not flow well enough.
probably much more can be written and it would be still interesting and useful.
good book, the only negative i'd point at is that at times i felt the (non)story did not flow well enough.
October 9, 2024
Review edited because the original entry was more a collection of my thoughts on the novel then a proper review and for a smaller publication is probably not fair to include on this page.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 31, 2025
Interesting, occasionally enlightening, but also occasionally bogged down in minutia bordering on academic. The history was compelling.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews