Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
An Anarchist Critique of March 19th Anti-War Actions
The following essay is a collection of thoughts and critiques of the past action, and some very simple thoughts of how things could be done better.
By: crudo, D.A.A.A. Collective
For all intensive purposes, an anarchist presence engaged itself during an ANSWER organized rally on March 19th in San Francisco. The group of about 100, gathered with black flags, banners, and a sound system. Two forums were set up to discuss community based issues like the Muni Fare Hike, (several workers talked), and ongoing curfew and youth issues in Oakland. Large amounts of literature were given out, advertising the forum to protest goers, and also detailing what anarchism was and it’s relationship to the anti-war movement. The group of anarchists attempted to gather people for some sort of action by dancing through the main ANSWER rally, and were stopped and almost accosted, and then took to the streets. A breakaway march then followed, (not to be outdone, a bike bloc was also active), with several hundred people taking to the downtown area, evading police, snaking on and off of the sidewalk, and moving fast and without much problems from police. Eventually, around 9 people were arrested after sitting down in the middle of an intersection.
The following essay is a collection of thoughts and critiques of the past action, and some very simple thoughts of how things could be done better.
The first part of the day was the gathering of the anarchist contingent at the corner of Dolores park. Black Flags, (and red and black flags), flew against the fence, and people gathered and created a space to gather. A large sound system played hip hop, punk, and dance music, as Food Not Bombs served food. The music drew a good response, with several people enjoying Dead Prez, (as opposed to the ANSWER stage music). Large amounts of small quarter sheet flyers were handed out, detailing the upcoming forum at the next rally point, which would address the Muni Fare Hike, and other community based issues. Copies of a small pamphlet with information on anarchism, links to local and national websites, an anarchist critique of the war, and a large poster stencil were also passed out, (and was also in Spanish). All these were good things. Music, information, food, people. A winning combination.
Simple things can make a huge difference, however, and here are some ideas. Firstly, walking up and down the park, one could tell that most of the tables were dominated largely by bizzaro Marxist-Leninst/Maoist type sects. One had to carry a big stick to fend off the assaults of, “Socialist Worker?”, “No! No! Back to hell you demon spawn!!!”. The newspaper hawking also created a sense of being staked by anti-capitalist Mormons, bent on your joining league with them. Simple spreads of anarchist literature would have made a huge difference. Free, cheap, interesting, inviting, and provocative, anarchist literature invites many people in to talk to us about what we are about, and encourages them to consider anarchism as an alternative to the existing power structures. Free literature tables, (or simply on blankets and banners), helps to create a space of learning and giving. Also contributing to that space of giving would be Food Not Bombs. But, while Food Not Bombs feeding people was good on Saturday, the only people who seemed to be eating was the anarchist contingent. It’s good we get our fuel going before the march, but Food Not Bombs could have easily set up right next to the main walkway, and offered food to the large community. This sharing of food in a direct anarchist context, further allows more mutual aid and gift economy to flourish in an environment that reeks of boring leftism and authoritarianism. These simple additions could have helped to create a warm, interesting, and inviting anarchist contingent gathering space for other people who were interested or positive to anarchism and anti-authoritarianism.
After waiting for the march to start, we then took our place in the march. The sound system allowed chants to be done by one group of people, while another person had a chance to use the megaphone. This allowed the anarchist bloc to sound very loud, and also get a good response from its participants. The group generally marched well as a group, not going to fast, which is a problem usually. The music was nice, and got people moving and pumped up.
There were many things however that could have been done better on this section I thought though. Firstly, our banners generally seemed bland and uninteresting, even compared to some of the ANSWER and socialist stuff. I also think that the “black bloc” appearance hurt us as well, as it was also mentioned on indybay.org by various posters. It’s easy to understand why people generally don’t want to be involved with the anarchists, largely because we look uninviting and stupid a lot of the time. Marching down Mission Street, being lead by ANSWER, is not the time to be blocked up, in full black, and with masks. Anarcho-punks also made the group look often like a big circle pit, and I think generally need to re-consider their appearance at protests. What is the point of blocking up when you have spikes and patches all over you? Do you really think the cops aren’t going to be able to pick you out of a crowd? Also, as far as outreach and pulling others into the march, the socialists and Leninists had us beat. No literature was distributed, and no attempt was made to make connections with people along the way. Simple things like Anarchist Marching Bands, Food Not Bombs bike carts, and Radical Cheerleaders all could have added to a general feeling of anarchist celebration and resistance. I think we need to look critically at each aspect of how we engage in protest, and think about how we go about doing things. There is a time and place for militant protest, and there is a time and place for breakaway marches. However, how can we expect people to simply chant and engage with us if we are outputting to the point of creating barriers. We also need to create a space where all people who have anarchist and anti-authoritarian stances can come together. Black Bloc is not the end all anarchist grouping, it is a tactic created by people for a certain tactical result.
At the second rally point a “general assembly” form was set up. The sound system was once again used to discuss various community issues. Several local workers discussed the Muni Fare Hike, and several others discussed situations going on in Oakland in regards to curfews, etc. I was pleased to see that many people who were listening to the ANSWER speakers came over and listened to the anarchist assembly and stayed to hear what was going on. Several posters on indybay.org have stated that perhaps the rally point could have been somewhere else to allow for better to hear the speakers better, but I believe that organizers did a pretty good job in this arena. Literature again, could have been a great thing to have. The IWW held it down against a sea of boring crap, as the only group resembling an anti-authoritarian perspective, (seriously, there’s a group called the ‘International Bolshevik Tendency”), and anarchist literature would have been well received. Food Not Bombs, or simply bags of dumpstered food, (where was that one guy who usually shows up with free dumpstered stuff?), could have also presented people with a free alternative to the various vendors. Also, the continued “black bloc” attire drew lots of police presence, (although I think that anything that reeks of anarchy will do this, no matter what it looks like), and possibly scared some people away. These are all things we need to consider.
With the general assembly over, we now had to decide what we were going to do with the rest of the day. It was decided that we were going to try and have a dance party while marching through the main ANSWER segment, (if you haven’t been to an ANSWER rally basically people gather in a main lawn segment and listen to speakers), and then try and build our numbers. While moving the sound system, hip hop played, and almost automatically, a lot of young people, (mostly of color), started getting excited and started dancing. As we got closer to the main part of the ANSWER stage, I, (and other people), were almost attacked by ANSWER supporters. Two guys were in my face screaming, yelling, and cursing me out. I made it clear to one guy that he was in dire need of settling his fucking kettle, and told him that if he wanted me to move that first he had to get out of my way. We then did basically a U space, going to the end of the park, and then back up to where we started, dancing all the way. We then spilled out into the front of the street, and people again began to dance. The crowd made its way, (very organically), to the start of the blocked off street were the police were. Rage Against the Machine’s “Killing in the Name Of”, came on, and people went off. Suddenly with a burst of energy the bloc, which by now contained a lot of ordinary people that were leaving the ANSWER protest, ran straight towards Market Street. Some people picked up barriers and metal barricades, throwing them into the street and at police officers. The bloc then made its way into the street with surprising speed. The music was still going, but was lagging behind because of the speed of the march. The police largely had to work to keep up, although soon would be on top of the situation. From then, the bloc snaked up and down various streets, and was able to escape the police time and time again. When police looked like they were closing in on a certain group, the bloc would go to the sidewalk but would not stop marching. Police having the group on the sidewalk generally could do nothing. Then the bloc would run again into another street in a new direction, and the process would begin again. People on the opposite sides of the street also flanked the others, and would spill into the march, and then back onto the sidewalk. Police units of motorcycles and a paddy wagon were roaming around, but never really where in a position to contain all of the marchers. In the end, the sound system, (although turned off), was taken, and 9 people were arrested while sitting in the middle of an intersection. It must be noted that I think that the group showed an impressive amount of speed and ability to evade police and kept the protest moving. The tactic of moving, running, etc, in and off the street and side walk should be considered for future actions.
The breakaway march on the 19th happened very organically and without any planning, but I think it presents us with a few things to think about. Firstly, what is a successful un-permitted action? Was this one? What were we really trying to accomplish, did we accomplish anything? Many people think that going on Market Street is a good tactic, however, I’m skeptical. Firstly, the large stores that sell things by and large get their business from walk ins, not from people driving. While shutting down the street may hurt the Market Street economy in a very small way, the action in itself is more symbolic I would say than anything else. Shutting down the city however is, I think, a legitimate goal. If the war is an extension of the capitalist systems drive to own and control resources, workers, people, and markets, then stopping the ability of the local extension of the capitalist system from functioning here will make it harder for it’s tentacles of imperialism and occupation to function elsewhere. If this is the goal, then “shutting down” a city is a worthwhile tactic, and to some extent the breakaway march on the 19th did do that to the best of its ability with the people that it had. If this is the goal however, direct action minded activists need to think seriously about the way in which they go about disrupting the functioning of cities. Going into detail here is pretty pointless, but the point to be made simply is that understanding various streets and places that allow for traffic and people flow is crucial if one’s goal is to “shut the city down”.
Other goals of un-permitted marches are to simply “keep the protest going”, and to take a militant revolutionary protest feel out into the streets. Militant street protest can also send a message to elites that anger is so great in the population, that people are willing to engage militancy in street protest. Another possible tactic is to focus the un-permitted protest towards some type of institution or thing. A recruiting station, a corporation that profits from the war, a political party office, etc, are all possible targets that can direct that attention of a breakaway. These targets need to be on the radar of militants, who need keep these things in mind and bring them up to the larger group. Research before going to a protest is crucial, and can help build plans for direct action.
The breakaway march on the 19th was not directed at one specific institution or aimed generally at shutting down the city, but was instead a spontaneous organic outburst of desire to take to the streets of the city and keep the protest going. Such actions are fine, and are better than sitting around doing nothing and listening to ANSWER speakers, but I think a few points can be made. Firstly, engaging repeatedly in types of un-permitted actions like what happened on the 19th will not get us that far, and if they only perpetuate themselves without change, we run the risk of becoming as stale and stupid as the Stalinists and Leninists we mock. Actions like the one on Saturday although may be rightfully done, help solidify in many people’s minds an idea that the black bloc and anarchists generally have no analysis of the current global and regional situations, and are there generally to “fuck up shit”, and ruin the space for other activists. Focusing our rage on certain specific entities I think can help to over come this misconception, and also gain more people interested in taking militant action. A largely successful action would have been around Army recruitment, with many youths attending the protest there in defiance against the military on campus, and also in the light of recent anarchist lead attacks against army recruitment centers. These are just ideas however, and also exist within the context of the amount of people that are there to engage in doing action.
Militant direct protest offers a possibly dangerous, (to activists), alternative, but ultimately more effective one than reformist march/rally/march/rally. Many people know that action must be taken against large hierarchal structures, and that these institutions will not change, much less abolish themselves by will of their own. A struggle and one that will use confrontation is needed to challenge, and ultimately destroy these existing power structures in order for something else to take its place. As revolutionaries who supposedly want social revolution, we must take this business seriously, and in a context and mind-frame that we intend to win. We can’t treat this movement and our interaction within it as just another stop on a train hopping travel, just another Against Me! show, or simply an opportunity to become the people we see in black in out activist videos. Also, if we are going to except the banner of “post-left”, or at least be in opposition to the current leading left organizations that are organizing events, we must step up to the plate an offer an alternative that invites others to our position, or better yet gives them the skills to organize, revolt, and work with us as we dismantle and build. Running through the streets might be fun, exciting, and bold, but ultimately if we are running through them simply for the high, and not towards the dawn of a new world, then it’s all for nothing.
To re-cap, here are some general thoughts and conclusions:
1.) Creating an inviting anarchist and anti-authoritarian environment for people at large protests is important if we want to engage other protest goers into working with us, or perhaps joining us. Many young people coming into large struggles are influence by anarchist writers and movements, and are interested in anarchism, however often see the anarchist movement as a “scene”, and therefore feel unwelcome. Free literature and lots of it is important. Literature from a wide variety of anarchist and anti-authoritarian perspectives is also important, as to not let anarchism appear to be just another secretarian form of political through, but a large, wide movement. Feelings of giving, cooperation, and gift economy need to be created, this can be done through making signs and banners on the spot, including local struggle and their connections with bigger themes into our critique, and also providing basic services for free like food (not bombs), water, massage, etc.
2.) When not engaging in illegal forms of protest, (i.e. not breakaway marches, etc), anarchist contingents need to drop the black bloc form of protest. Anarcho-punks need to consider their dress not only in relationship to police IDing them, but also to how they will be perceived by larger audiences. Black blocs often give people the impression that they are the only cohesive group of anarchists at protests, while a wider more broad groupings of anarchists can create a much different feel. Our banners, and other forms of communication, (including chants), need to reflect this openness. Music helps to break the barriers with people, and create a feeling of happiness while resisting.
3.) Permitted anarchist street protest can give us an opportunity to create a roving carnival of gift economy and mutual aid. Food Not Bombs doing roving feeds, free literature being given out, etc, can all help to build this. Groups of radical queers dancing, radical cheerleaders leading chants, anarchist marching bands etc, and whole hosts of other groups can also add to this by bringing in various aspects that other groups can’t. This is also part of building, (during permitted marches), and sense of broader anarchist involvement that will allow more people to become interested in anarchy, and hopefully connect with us.
4.) When being critical of ANSWER, the RCP, and other groups, we should be at the same time willing to offer up another alternative. If ANSWER didn’t buy the permits and organize the rallies, what would be done in their place? How do we intend to stop the war? Propaganda directed at this subject should be distributed by anarchists, as to help explain our criticism of ANSWER, etc.
5.) We must take militant street protest seriously, and not treat it as an opportunity to simply run around and evade the police, (who generally are a side issue). If our goal is to actually change things through direct action, we need to seriously think about how we can engage directly and effect things. Repeated tactics are not acceptable, and people need to constantly be thinking of new plans, targets, and ideas. People must stop attending actions waiting for the “black bloc”, and for the “breakaway”. Instead, people need to actively be thinking about how THEY and their affinity groups are going to engage, or at least help in doing a certain actions.
For all intensive purposes, an anarchist presence engaged itself during an ANSWER organized rally on March 19th in San Francisco. The group of about 100, gathered with black flags, banners, and a sound system. Two forums were set up to discuss community based issues like the Muni Fare Hike, (several workers talked), and ongoing curfew and youth issues in Oakland. Large amounts of literature were given out, advertising the forum to protest goers, and also detailing what anarchism was and it’s relationship to the anti-war movement. The group of anarchists attempted to gather people for some sort of action by dancing through the main ANSWER rally, and were stopped and almost accosted, and then took to the streets. A breakaway march then followed, (not to be outdone, a bike bloc was also active), with several hundred people taking to the downtown area, evading police, snaking on and off of the sidewalk, and moving fast and without much problems from police. Eventually, around 9 people were arrested after sitting down in the middle of an intersection.
The following essay is a collection of thoughts and critiques of the past action, and some very simple thoughts of how things could be done better.
The first part of the day was the gathering of the anarchist contingent at the corner of Dolores park. Black Flags, (and red and black flags), flew against the fence, and people gathered and created a space to gather. A large sound system played hip hop, punk, and dance music, as Food Not Bombs served food. The music drew a good response, with several people enjoying Dead Prez, (as opposed to the ANSWER stage music). Large amounts of small quarter sheet flyers were handed out, detailing the upcoming forum at the next rally point, which would address the Muni Fare Hike, and other community based issues. Copies of a small pamphlet with information on anarchism, links to local and national websites, an anarchist critique of the war, and a large poster stencil were also passed out, (and was also in Spanish). All these were good things. Music, information, food, people. A winning combination.
Simple things can make a huge difference, however, and here are some ideas. Firstly, walking up and down the park, one could tell that most of the tables were dominated largely by bizzaro Marxist-Leninst/Maoist type sects. One had to carry a big stick to fend off the assaults of, “Socialist Worker?”, “No! No! Back to hell you demon spawn!!!”. The newspaper hawking also created a sense of being staked by anti-capitalist Mormons, bent on your joining league with them. Simple spreads of anarchist literature would have made a huge difference. Free, cheap, interesting, inviting, and provocative, anarchist literature invites many people in to talk to us about what we are about, and encourages them to consider anarchism as an alternative to the existing power structures. Free literature tables, (or simply on blankets and banners), helps to create a space of learning and giving. Also contributing to that space of giving would be Food Not Bombs. But, while Food Not Bombs feeding people was good on Saturday, the only people who seemed to be eating was the anarchist contingent. It’s good we get our fuel going before the march, but Food Not Bombs could have easily set up right next to the main walkway, and offered food to the large community. This sharing of food in a direct anarchist context, further allows more mutual aid and gift economy to flourish in an environment that reeks of boring leftism and authoritarianism. These simple additions could have helped to create a warm, interesting, and inviting anarchist contingent gathering space for other people who were interested or positive to anarchism and anti-authoritarianism.
After waiting for the march to start, we then took our place in the march. The sound system allowed chants to be done by one group of people, while another person had a chance to use the megaphone. This allowed the anarchist bloc to sound very loud, and also get a good response from its participants. The group generally marched well as a group, not going to fast, which is a problem usually. The music was nice, and got people moving and pumped up.
There were many things however that could have been done better on this section I thought though. Firstly, our banners generally seemed bland and uninteresting, even compared to some of the ANSWER and socialist stuff. I also think that the “black bloc” appearance hurt us as well, as it was also mentioned on indybay.org by various posters. It’s easy to understand why people generally don’t want to be involved with the anarchists, largely because we look uninviting and stupid a lot of the time. Marching down Mission Street, being lead by ANSWER, is not the time to be blocked up, in full black, and with masks. Anarcho-punks also made the group look often like a big circle pit, and I think generally need to re-consider their appearance at protests. What is the point of blocking up when you have spikes and patches all over you? Do you really think the cops aren’t going to be able to pick you out of a crowd? Also, as far as outreach and pulling others into the march, the socialists and Leninists had us beat. No literature was distributed, and no attempt was made to make connections with people along the way. Simple things like Anarchist Marching Bands, Food Not Bombs bike carts, and Radical Cheerleaders all could have added to a general feeling of anarchist celebration and resistance. I think we need to look critically at each aspect of how we engage in protest, and think about how we go about doing things. There is a time and place for militant protest, and there is a time and place for breakaway marches. However, how can we expect people to simply chant and engage with us if we are outputting to the point of creating barriers. We also need to create a space where all people who have anarchist and anti-authoritarian stances can come together. Black Bloc is not the end all anarchist grouping, it is a tactic created by people for a certain tactical result.
At the second rally point a “general assembly” form was set up. The sound system was once again used to discuss various community issues. Several local workers discussed the Muni Fare Hike, and several others discussed situations going on in Oakland in regards to curfews, etc. I was pleased to see that many people who were listening to the ANSWER speakers came over and listened to the anarchist assembly and stayed to hear what was going on. Several posters on indybay.org have stated that perhaps the rally point could have been somewhere else to allow for better to hear the speakers better, but I believe that organizers did a pretty good job in this arena. Literature again, could have been a great thing to have. The IWW held it down against a sea of boring crap, as the only group resembling an anti-authoritarian perspective, (seriously, there’s a group called the ‘International Bolshevik Tendency”), and anarchist literature would have been well received. Food Not Bombs, or simply bags of dumpstered food, (where was that one guy who usually shows up with free dumpstered stuff?), could have also presented people with a free alternative to the various vendors. Also, the continued “black bloc” attire drew lots of police presence, (although I think that anything that reeks of anarchy will do this, no matter what it looks like), and possibly scared some people away. These are all things we need to consider.
With the general assembly over, we now had to decide what we were going to do with the rest of the day. It was decided that we were going to try and have a dance party while marching through the main ANSWER segment, (if you haven’t been to an ANSWER rally basically people gather in a main lawn segment and listen to speakers), and then try and build our numbers. While moving the sound system, hip hop played, and almost automatically, a lot of young people, (mostly of color), started getting excited and started dancing. As we got closer to the main part of the ANSWER stage, I, (and other people), were almost attacked by ANSWER supporters. Two guys were in my face screaming, yelling, and cursing me out. I made it clear to one guy that he was in dire need of settling his fucking kettle, and told him that if he wanted me to move that first he had to get out of my way. We then did basically a U space, going to the end of the park, and then back up to where we started, dancing all the way. We then spilled out into the front of the street, and people again began to dance. The crowd made its way, (very organically), to the start of the blocked off street were the police were. Rage Against the Machine’s “Killing in the Name Of”, came on, and people went off. Suddenly with a burst of energy the bloc, which by now contained a lot of ordinary people that were leaving the ANSWER protest, ran straight towards Market Street. Some people picked up barriers and metal barricades, throwing them into the street and at police officers. The bloc then made its way into the street with surprising speed. The music was still going, but was lagging behind because of the speed of the march. The police largely had to work to keep up, although soon would be on top of the situation. From then, the bloc snaked up and down various streets, and was able to escape the police time and time again. When police looked like they were closing in on a certain group, the bloc would go to the sidewalk but would not stop marching. Police having the group on the sidewalk generally could do nothing. Then the bloc would run again into another street in a new direction, and the process would begin again. People on the opposite sides of the street also flanked the others, and would spill into the march, and then back onto the sidewalk. Police units of motorcycles and a paddy wagon were roaming around, but never really where in a position to contain all of the marchers. In the end, the sound system, (although turned off), was taken, and 9 people were arrested while sitting in the middle of an intersection. It must be noted that I think that the group showed an impressive amount of speed and ability to evade police and kept the protest moving. The tactic of moving, running, etc, in and off the street and side walk should be considered for future actions.
The breakaway march on the 19th happened very organically and without any planning, but I think it presents us with a few things to think about. Firstly, what is a successful un-permitted action? Was this one? What were we really trying to accomplish, did we accomplish anything? Many people think that going on Market Street is a good tactic, however, I’m skeptical. Firstly, the large stores that sell things by and large get their business from walk ins, not from people driving. While shutting down the street may hurt the Market Street economy in a very small way, the action in itself is more symbolic I would say than anything else. Shutting down the city however is, I think, a legitimate goal. If the war is an extension of the capitalist systems drive to own and control resources, workers, people, and markets, then stopping the ability of the local extension of the capitalist system from functioning here will make it harder for it’s tentacles of imperialism and occupation to function elsewhere. If this is the goal, then “shutting down” a city is a worthwhile tactic, and to some extent the breakaway march on the 19th did do that to the best of its ability with the people that it had. If this is the goal however, direct action minded activists need to think seriously about the way in which they go about disrupting the functioning of cities. Going into detail here is pretty pointless, but the point to be made simply is that understanding various streets and places that allow for traffic and people flow is crucial if one’s goal is to “shut the city down”.
Other goals of un-permitted marches are to simply “keep the protest going”, and to take a militant revolutionary protest feel out into the streets. Militant street protest can also send a message to elites that anger is so great in the population, that people are willing to engage militancy in street protest. Another possible tactic is to focus the un-permitted protest towards some type of institution or thing. A recruiting station, a corporation that profits from the war, a political party office, etc, are all possible targets that can direct that attention of a breakaway. These targets need to be on the radar of militants, who need keep these things in mind and bring them up to the larger group. Research before going to a protest is crucial, and can help build plans for direct action.
The breakaway march on the 19th was not directed at one specific institution or aimed generally at shutting down the city, but was instead a spontaneous organic outburst of desire to take to the streets of the city and keep the protest going. Such actions are fine, and are better than sitting around doing nothing and listening to ANSWER speakers, but I think a few points can be made. Firstly, engaging repeatedly in types of un-permitted actions like what happened on the 19th will not get us that far, and if they only perpetuate themselves without change, we run the risk of becoming as stale and stupid as the Stalinists and Leninists we mock. Actions like the one on Saturday although may be rightfully done, help solidify in many people’s minds an idea that the black bloc and anarchists generally have no analysis of the current global and regional situations, and are there generally to “fuck up shit”, and ruin the space for other activists. Focusing our rage on certain specific entities I think can help to over come this misconception, and also gain more people interested in taking militant action. A largely successful action would have been around Army recruitment, with many youths attending the protest there in defiance against the military on campus, and also in the light of recent anarchist lead attacks against army recruitment centers. These are just ideas however, and also exist within the context of the amount of people that are there to engage in doing action.
Militant direct protest offers a possibly dangerous, (to activists), alternative, but ultimately more effective one than reformist march/rally/march/rally. Many people know that action must be taken against large hierarchal structures, and that these institutions will not change, much less abolish themselves by will of their own. A struggle and one that will use confrontation is needed to challenge, and ultimately destroy these existing power structures in order for something else to take its place. As revolutionaries who supposedly want social revolution, we must take this business seriously, and in a context and mind-frame that we intend to win. We can’t treat this movement and our interaction within it as just another stop on a train hopping travel, just another Against Me! show, or simply an opportunity to become the people we see in black in out activist videos. Also, if we are going to except the banner of “post-left”, or at least be in opposition to the current leading left organizations that are organizing events, we must step up to the plate an offer an alternative that invites others to our position, or better yet gives them the skills to organize, revolt, and work with us as we dismantle and build. Running through the streets might be fun, exciting, and bold, but ultimately if we are running through them simply for the high, and not towards the dawn of a new world, then it’s all for nothing.
To re-cap, here are some general thoughts and conclusions:
1.) Creating an inviting anarchist and anti-authoritarian environment for people at large protests is important if we want to engage other protest goers into working with us, or perhaps joining us. Many young people coming into large struggles are influence by anarchist writers and movements, and are interested in anarchism, however often see the anarchist movement as a “scene”, and therefore feel unwelcome. Free literature and lots of it is important. Literature from a wide variety of anarchist and anti-authoritarian perspectives is also important, as to not let anarchism appear to be just another secretarian form of political through, but a large, wide movement. Feelings of giving, cooperation, and gift economy need to be created, this can be done through making signs and banners on the spot, including local struggle and their connections with bigger themes into our critique, and also providing basic services for free like food (not bombs), water, massage, etc.
2.) When not engaging in illegal forms of protest, (i.e. not breakaway marches, etc), anarchist contingents need to drop the black bloc form of protest. Anarcho-punks need to consider their dress not only in relationship to police IDing them, but also to how they will be perceived by larger audiences. Black blocs often give people the impression that they are the only cohesive group of anarchists at protests, while a wider more broad groupings of anarchists can create a much different feel. Our banners, and other forms of communication, (including chants), need to reflect this openness. Music helps to break the barriers with people, and create a feeling of happiness while resisting.
3.) Permitted anarchist street protest can give us an opportunity to create a roving carnival of gift economy and mutual aid. Food Not Bombs doing roving feeds, free literature being given out, etc, can all help to build this. Groups of radical queers dancing, radical cheerleaders leading chants, anarchist marching bands etc, and whole hosts of other groups can also add to this by bringing in various aspects that other groups can’t. This is also part of building, (during permitted marches), and sense of broader anarchist involvement that will allow more people to become interested in anarchy, and hopefully connect with us.
4.) When being critical of ANSWER, the RCP, and other groups, we should be at the same time willing to offer up another alternative. If ANSWER didn’t buy the permits and organize the rallies, what would be done in their place? How do we intend to stop the war? Propaganda directed at this subject should be distributed by anarchists, as to help explain our criticism of ANSWER, etc.
5.) We must take militant street protest seriously, and not treat it as an opportunity to simply run around and evade the police, (who generally are a side issue). If our goal is to actually change things through direct action, we need to seriously think about how we can engage directly and effect things. Repeated tactics are not acceptable, and people need to constantly be thinking of new plans, targets, and ideas. People must stop attending actions waiting for the “black bloc”, and for the “breakaway”. Instead, people need to actively be thinking about how THEY and their affinity groups are going to engage, or at least help in doing a certain actions.
For more information:
http://www.indybay.org
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
"For all intensive purposes"
Huh, did you mean "For all intents and purposes?" Learn how to write, please. Sloppiness will get you nowhere.
Huh, did you mean "For all intents and purposes?" Learn how to write, please. Sloppiness will get you nowhere.
hey crudo, thanks so much for your thoughtful reflections and critique on saturday's anarchist contingent. i agreed with a lot of your analysis and also just appreciate your taking the time to reflect on how the event went, what seemed successful, what could change, and put out your thoughts in a context of how we can be thinking about getting more strategic, more connected instead of isolated, so our politics can be expressed through a practice that gets increasingly more, rather than less, effective and healthy! thanks again, it was great to read this here.
Really appreciate the critique and helped with clarification on my own feelings from the day. You did leave out the fun factor of the break away though, even though I think it turned the wrong direction down Market.
Much appreciation for putting together your reflections on the anarchist contingent and drawing out concrete lessons. I very much agree about the importance of anarchist contigents being inviting and engaging. As an anarchist who came out of punk, I understand the fashion, but completely agree that it is alienating to a lot of people (including a lot of anarchists who aren't punk). Thanks for sharing this. It's exciting to hear that the contigent took time to learn about on-going struggles in the community and how to get involved.
But also note there were many of us anarchists that made different tactical choices.
Anarchists should understand the difference between protest and direct action and should explain this difference to people who do not already understand the difference.
Anarchists who seek a social revolution have no interest in protests, other than to spread information (propaganda) and engage in direct action.
For the purpose of spreading information, a single anarchist contingent is counter-productive. Better to split into several groups throughout the terrain of the protest.
For the purpose of direct action, a unified anarchist contingent is necesssary when numbers and coordination (organization) is insufficient to create several direct action contingents throughout the protest.
Within a direct action contingent, wearing all black clothing is the best tactic for avoiding all forms of police identification. This clothing should be as uniform as possible to decrease the ability of outsiders to distinguish between individuals within the black bloc.
There is always the potential for a disruption of protest routine, and hence "business as usual" (capitalism), and anarchists should try to act on this potential when possible/feasible.
The use of the black bloc tactic increases the potential and capacity for direct action.
These are tactical and strategic considerations which should be elaborated on through discussion (theory) and experimentation in practice (direct action).
Anarchists who seek a social revolution have no interest in protests, other than to spread information (propaganda) and engage in direct action.
For the purpose of spreading information, a single anarchist contingent is counter-productive. Better to split into several groups throughout the terrain of the protest.
For the purpose of direct action, a unified anarchist contingent is necesssary when numbers and coordination (organization) is insufficient to create several direct action contingents throughout the protest.
Within a direct action contingent, wearing all black clothing is the best tactic for avoiding all forms of police identification. This clothing should be as uniform as possible to decrease the ability of outsiders to distinguish between individuals within the black bloc.
There is always the potential for a disruption of protest routine, and hence "business as usual" (capitalism), and anarchists should try to act on this potential when possible/feasible.
The use of the black bloc tactic increases the potential and capacity for direct action.
These are tactical and strategic considerations which should be elaborated on through discussion (theory) and experimentation in practice (direct action).
"direct action" seems to imply creating actual change directly rather than engaging in symbolic actions like protests, but when you get down to it most direct actions end up being even more symbolic than protests since the outreach potential is less.
Real direct action typically just gets less publicity and are a little less "glamourous". Direct action takes place around us all the without mention because these are the people who typically are too busy to worry about being on center stage, also there is something to be said for humility and lack of "personalities"... Depending solely on symbolic acts is treading on dangerous grounds. At the same time, like I said above, symbolic acts can be alot of fun. :)
the anarchist community as a whole tends to be younger and thus much more clicish than other groups. don't get me wrong i love and fully support the @ community and i am well aware some amount of security must be maintained because of who and what we are but we should all try to be more accepting of anarchists or other radicals who are older or don't fit the stereotypical anarchist model (i.e. clad in black, dyed hair, latest punk band symbol pinned to a thrift store sweatshirt). and we should all work to depose the leaders of ANSWER. 'nough said.
in resistance and solidarity
@~
in resistance and solidarity
@~
Something you all should know is that saturday's breakaway march did not end at Valencia and 14th St. While the police were procrastinating to arest the six or so protesters blocking the intersection, we were trying to figure out where the march was to go next. This was difficult, however, because we were all bocked in by police on four different sidewalks and could not simply take off. Then someone decided that we leave in small groups and meet again at Haight and Filmore. So we did and the cops thought the march was over. About an hour later anywhere from 20-40 were marching towards the main part of Haight, and homeless punks and hippies joined in untill our numbers were from 40-50. Chants of "while you're shopping bombs are dropping" were shouted at the unsuspecting tourists. The greatest part of this march was that there was no police attention untill the very end of the street, when one lonely (and confused) cop car followed us untill the march ended in Golden Gate Park. The whole day, in my eyes, was a sucess for us anarchists partly because of the great organization and tactics used. Spliting up in small numbers and then re-assembeling at a different location was the greatest and most successful tactict I had ever seen used in a breakaway march (which are usually spontanious and unorganized, as you said). Anyways, next protest we will definitely use this method of continuing the march when it seens to be over.
I do have to say I was VERY impressed with the discussion and debate I saw along with follow through of the group that didn't get side-tracked. Only thing I noticed was once plans were made there was a level of secrecy that excluded some people but at the same time I know there was talk that the police were very suspicious of a "splinter march".
"we should all work to depose the leaders of ANSWER"
To me that kinda sums up the problem with Anarchism. More focus is put on messing up work others are doing than providing an alternative. ANSWER has issues but they are not the ones waging war in Iraq or oppressing workers. Perhaps people will start respecting Anarchists more when the Anarchist message stops being so sectarian and starts being about organizing to help workers and end wars rather than organizing to end protests by others with a slight political difference that isnt even expressed much at protests. ANSWER seems to welcome anyone to their protests and doesnt seem to be that sectarian in terms of requiring people to agree with the politics of many of its organizers. The talk from the stage is often boring but the crowd who will show up for an ANSWER protest is much more diverse than the Bay Area Anarchist scene because the message is one of unity without the types of attacks on other activists that have become all too common in the Anarchist scene.
Ideologically I'm probably an Anarchist but all the sectarian infighting and attacks on other activists by so called Anarchists definitely makes me appreciate ANSWER and NION's style of organizing much more than Anarchist organizing.
To me that kinda sums up the problem with Anarchism. More focus is put on messing up work others are doing than providing an alternative. ANSWER has issues but they are not the ones waging war in Iraq or oppressing workers. Perhaps people will start respecting Anarchists more when the Anarchist message stops being so sectarian and starts being about organizing to help workers and end wars rather than organizing to end protests by others with a slight political difference that isnt even expressed much at protests. ANSWER seems to welcome anyone to their protests and doesnt seem to be that sectarian in terms of requiring people to agree with the politics of many of its organizers. The talk from the stage is often boring but the crowd who will show up for an ANSWER protest is much more diverse than the Bay Area Anarchist scene because the message is one of unity without the types of attacks on other activists that have become all too common in the Anarchist scene.
Ideologically I'm probably an Anarchist but all the sectarian infighting and attacks on other activists by so called Anarchists definitely makes me appreciate ANSWER and NION's style of organizing much more than Anarchist organizing.
"To me that kinda sums up the problem with Anarchism. More focus is put on messing up work others are doing than providing an alternative. ANSWER has issues but they are not the ones waging war in Iraq or oppressing workers. Perhaps people will start respecting Anarchists more when the Anarchist message stops being so sectarian and starts being about organizing to help workers and end wars rather than organizing to end protests by others with a slight political difference that isnt even expressed much at protests. ANSWER seems to welcome anyone to their protests and doesnt seem to be that sectarian in terms of requiring people to agree with the politics of many of its organizers. The talk from the stage is often boring but the crowd who will show up for an ANSWER protest is much more diverse than the Bay Area Anarchist scene because the message is one of unity without the types of attacks on other activists that have become all too common in the Anarchist scene."
You know, isn't it about time that ANSWER's leaders spent some time talking to activists publicly, instead of sending their supporters out to run interference, and put down anarchists.
Look, you either know very little about ANSWER or you are an apologist for them. ANSWER is really good at putting on this show of "we'll work with anybody." The truth is that they are more sectarian and hostile than anarchists or any other group. There are some solid reasons why anarchists, UFPJ, peace activists, and other groups won't work with ANSWER. It's because ANSWER is a hard group to work with. If they aren't actively sabotaging other groups' protests, they refuse to allow any democracy in their organization. ANSWER is simply a front group for a small group of communist extremists involved with the Workers World Party. If the WWP doesn't ring a bell, they support left wing dictators around the world and operate several front groups which organize protests.
Anarchists really don't spend much time worrying about ANSWER. We're pretty busy with our own movement and activism. Activists know that they can work with anarchists because we do lots of the shit work and we do it well. But we aren't going to shut up about an organization like ANSWER, which has basically fucked over the peace movement. You don't think they are sectarian? Why do they spread rumors about anarchist leaders being cops? Why do they tell new ANSWER members that anarchists work for the CIA?
You must be familiar with people who put on a good face in public, but in private spread all kinds of malicious gossip about other people. That's ANSWER for you. Anarchists and others criticize ANSWER on their politics, organization and practice. ANSWER responds with rumor-mongering and unaccountability.
You know, isn't it about time that ANSWER's leaders spent some time talking to activists publicly, instead of sending their supporters out to run interference, and put down anarchists.
Look, you either know very little about ANSWER or you are an apologist for them. ANSWER is really good at putting on this show of "we'll work with anybody." The truth is that they are more sectarian and hostile than anarchists or any other group. There are some solid reasons why anarchists, UFPJ, peace activists, and other groups won't work with ANSWER. It's because ANSWER is a hard group to work with. If they aren't actively sabotaging other groups' protests, they refuse to allow any democracy in their organization. ANSWER is simply a front group for a small group of communist extremists involved with the Workers World Party. If the WWP doesn't ring a bell, they support left wing dictators around the world and operate several front groups which organize protests.
Anarchists really don't spend much time worrying about ANSWER. We're pretty busy with our own movement and activism. Activists know that they can work with anarchists because we do lots of the shit work and we do it well. But we aren't going to shut up about an organization like ANSWER, which has basically fucked over the peace movement. You don't think they are sectarian? Why do they spread rumors about anarchist leaders being cops? Why do they tell new ANSWER members that anarchists work for the CIA?
You must be familiar with people who put on a good face in public, but in private spread all kinds of malicious gossip about other people. That's ANSWER for you. Anarchists and others criticize ANSWER on their politics, organization and practice. ANSWER responds with rumor-mongering and unaccountability.
For more information:
http://www.infoshop.org
Maybe its different in other parts of the country but Ive been to probably 100 ANSWER organized and a few NION organized protests in the Bay Arae and while I was with various Anarchist contingents only once did I see them attempt to stop a breakaway march and they didnt try too hard (it almost seemed like they were just doing enough so they could claim to the police that they tried to stop it.). In terms of groups denouncing each other Ive seen some sectarian Anarchists go after ANSWER to the point of starting hate websites against them and Ive also seen the Sparts put out antiAnarchist stuff but aside from sectarian Anarchists and the Sparts other groups seem to get along pretty well. For some starnge reason some Anarchists and Sparts think the Left is somehow organized enough that we have to worry about other Leftist groups as much as we aorry about the state. I wouldnt want to work within ANSWER but when I go to their protests I dont have to. At the SF protest there were 3+ stages with labor speakers in one part of the park while the main ANSWER stage was in another. Most of the labor groups that were at the nonANSWER stage didnt see this as a protest against ANSWER just a way for those people who want to focus on labor issues to hear labor related speakers. The Anarchost group seemed to see thing differently and was chanting antiANSWER slogans for some reasons. I really dont know where the sectarianism comes from. It makes me not want to call myself an Anarchist.
I guess in other parts of the country things are different. I've heard a little about UFP and ANSWER's problems over the NYC vs North Carolina protests but from what Ive heard second hand, I would tend to stand with ANSWER in that case.
I guess in other parts of the country things are different. I've heard a little about UFP and ANSWER's problems over the NYC vs North Carolina protests but from what Ive heard second hand, I would tend to stand with ANSWER in that case.
Thanks so much for your analysis. Each time that I was thinking about another point that I wanted to add, in the next paragraph, you'd address it. I would like to make a comment tho to some of the folks who've commented on this article, please be careful about trying to speak for ALL anarchists, i.e. typing "We believe..." or "real anarchists would (not) do this or that)." It's incredibly authoritarian. And most of the time, I (an anarchist) feel that it doesn't speak for me at all.
I do think that it is important for non-blackbloc anarchists to be more visible to the public. Rather than saying what blackbloc folks should or should not be doing, we need to work more to have our own voices heard.
I do think that it is important for non-blackbloc anarchists to be more visible to the public. Rather than saying what blackbloc folks should or should not be doing, we need to work more to have our own voices heard.
"Look, you either know very little about ANSWER or you are an apologist for them. "
I know plenty about the WWP but really dont care. I mean O22 does good police brutality work but the RCP has pictures of Stalin in their bookstores. I try to stay away from their bookstores but that doesnt mean I try to sabotage the good work they do on certain causes. The proIsrael people at Palestine related protests always accuse me of being an "apologist", now fellow Anarchists do too. I'm thinking of makling @pologist T-shirts, it seems like it could be a new trend.
@pologists: "Anarchists who play nice with others"
I know plenty about the WWP but really dont care. I mean O22 does good police brutality work but the RCP has pictures of Stalin in their bookstores. I try to stay away from their bookstores but that doesnt mean I try to sabotage the good work they do on certain causes. The proIsrael people at Palestine related protests always accuse me of being an "apologist", now fellow Anarchists do too. I'm thinking of makling @pologist T-shirts, it seems like it could be a new trend.
@pologists: "Anarchists who play nice with others"
All this talk about reds, ANSWER and stuff reminds me of this old email thread talking about the history of red/ black relations with a friend who has been an anarchist longer than I've been alive. I edited the thread down so it might be a bit choppy. It talks a little bit about the history and players. Thought it might be useful here for a who's who.
Used to be the commies didn't really want to work with anarchists -- had nothing good to say about us in fact. But, since the current direct action movement is more or less operated by anarchists on antiauthoritarian principles, they've figured out they have to make nice if they want in on the game Although, I wouldn't write the commies off too soon...very sneaky and adaptble, and since a lot of them don't really have principles about the methods they use (they're very "ends justify the means"), you can't put anything past them. For instance in the 80s lots of the sects had an antigay platform (product of capitalism, to be eliminated after the revolution), but when tht became unacceptable to the left in general, they dropped it.
If you're familiar with the history of 60s activism, ML sects essentially destroyed SDS (in particular one called Peoples Labor Party or PLP -- they all have these acronyms).
This history is partly why lots of old lefties are so down on ANSWER (front group for Workers World Party via International Action Center) and NION (front for Revolutionary Communist Party vi Refuse and Resist).
NEFAC (and there are several similar anrchocomm orgs or quasi-anrch orgs operating on borderline ML principles (like Bring on the Ruckus) arise out of a history of class struggle type anarchs thinking the movement was going in to much of a "lifestylist" direction (e.g., everyone was becoming punks and trainhoppers and vegans and squatters but no one was organizing for the revolution), and were feeling the need to have more "efficient" anarchist orgs with greater ideological homogeneity. Lot of that debate happened within Love & Rage, which I used to be a member in the early 90s. First it shifted from a network of anarchists to a "federation," then essentially split, with some ex-members going in a commie direction.
I've casually followed their history and I think they are a genuine collaboration of more-or-less antiauthoritarian communists and anarchists, not an ML front group, but I wouldn't be surprised if some MLs saw an opportunity there and got involved to try to shift things in their direction.
I don't believe they were influenced by the traditional ML sects... they came up with anew all on their own, I think. Seems like a lot of people who are really concerned about efficiency and accomplishments often eventually put aside principles to just get something done for change. Granted anrchist projects are pretty damn inefficient a lot of the time. But what's it worth if you have to use corrupt means to get there?
Libertarians are another story. Back in the early days of the net most of the trollers in anarch lists/Usenet groups where libertarians (or, as some called themselves, "anarchocapitalists" <cough!>). Not surprising since internet users used to be mostly comp sci students and such, and many techies tend to be libertarians (at least until their jobs get off-shored ;-) ... not many communists around back then.
It's definitely worth keeping up on who's who so when they attempt to sneak their way into coalitions you can recognize them. Lots of anarchists seem to be into the anarchocomm groups like NEFAC and the whole black/red unity thing. Personally, I'm not into the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" type of thinking. If their principles are fundamentally opposed to mine, why should I want to unite with them anymore than, say, fascist isolationists who oppose the war?
Used to be the commies didn't really want to work with anarchists -- had nothing good to say about us in fact. But, since the current direct action movement is more or less operated by anarchists on antiauthoritarian principles, they've figured out they have to make nice if they want in on the game Although, I wouldn't write the commies off too soon...very sneaky and adaptble, and since a lot of them don't really have principles about the methods they use (they're very "ends justify the means"), you can't put anything past them. For instance in the 80s lots of the sects had an antigay platform (product of capitalism, to be eliminated after the revolution), but when tht became unacceptable to the left in general, they dropped it.
If you're familiar with the history of 60s activism, ML sects essentially destroyed SDS (in particular one called Peoples Labor Party or PLP -- they all have these acronyms).
This history is partly why lots of old lefties are so down on ANSWER (front group for Workers World Party via International Action Center) and NION (front for Revolutionary Communist Party vi Refuse and Resist).
NEFAC (and there are several similar anrchocomm orgs or quasi-anrch orgs operating on borderline ML principles (like Bring on the Ruckus) arise out of a history of class struggle type anarchs thinking the movement was going in to much of a "lifestylist" direction (e.g., everyone was becoming punks and trainhoppers and vegans and squatters but no one was organizing for the revolution), and were feeling the need to have more "efficient" anarchist orgs with greater ideological homogeneity. Lot of that debate happened within Love & Rage, which I used to be a member in the early 90s. First it shifted from a network of anarchists to a "federation," then essentially split, with some ex-members going in a commie direction.
I've casually followed their history and I think they are a genuine collaboration of more-or-less antiauthoritarian communists and anarchists, not an ML front group, but I wouldn't be surprised if some MLs saw an opportunity there and got involved to try to shift things in their direction.
I don't believe they were influenced by the traditional ML sects... they came up with anew all on their own, I think. Seems like a lot of people who are really concerned about efficiency and accomplishments often eventually put aside principles to just get something done for change. Granted anrchist projects are pretty damn inefficient a lot of the time. But what's it worth if you have to use corrupt means to get there?
Libertarians are another story. Back in the early days of the net most of the trollers in anarch lists/Usenet groups where libertarians (or, as some called themselves, "anarchocapitalists" <cough!>). Not surprising since internet users used to be mostly comp sci students and such, and many techies tend to be libertarians (at least until their jobs get off-shored ;-) ... not many communists around back then.
It's definitely worth keeping up on who's who so when they attempt to sneak their way into coalitions you can recognize them. Lots of anarchists seem to be into the anarchocomm groups like NEFAC and the whole black/red unity thing. Personally, I'm not into the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" type of thinking. If their principles are fundamentally opposed to mine, why should I want to unite with them anymore than, say, fascist isolationists who oppose the war?
Noam Chomsky has to be the most noted living anarchist writer, and people were digging on him for signing onto that list of leftists saying that the potential consequences are so grave right now with militarism w/ potential nuclear consequences, and global warming in addition to other things, that it was more important to get Kerry in office as a preventative measure, than to focus on party building or thinking about a radical solution, which wasn't about to happen. Even Winona LaDuke signed on. Chomsky always gets most of his bad press for weird petitions he signs rather than what he writes, probably because Horowitz etc. can't understand his books, but he has backed up the sentiment in speeches and writing. He definitely desires a change of revolutionary proportions, but also expresses an understanding that the working class is better situated to do this when: 1. their economic condition is better, 2. Democracy is much better enabled a'la Ralph Nader's message so that partial gains can be made w/o streetfighting or whatever. Isn't it the maoists and RCP who have a strategy of favoring things getting so bad that people rise up. But Chomsky and Michael Albert say that this has been demonstrated false and real gains always come during prosperous times. I can't really decide because there were a lot of quick changes in the late 30s and late 60s, but maybe institutional gains come when there are funds.
Thanks Michael for the history lesson on Socialist, Communist and Libertarian groups. I'm also in agreement with Chuck Munson when he says that International A.N.S.W.E.R. are more sectarian than Anarchists are. Here's a little story that substantiates his point: Saturday March 19, 2005: Gulf War 2 anniversary protest @ Delores Park. My friend from the local environmental protection organisation Greenaction wanted to speak about the upcoming Pacific Gas and Electric protest @ their corporate headquarters on Wednesday. The Interantional A.N.S.W.E.R. refused to give her speaking-time and told her "just leave a flyer". This tells me 3 things: 1)That International A.N.S.W.E.R.are more willing to give speaking-time to their 4 dozen pre-booked speakers, 2)International A.N.S.W.E.R. focuses more on global issues [like war] happening in a far-flung foreign nation than on local/regional issues; Gulf War 2 instead of the everyday class war at home & 3) International A.N.S.W.E.R. [or Socialist and liberal activists in general] are elitist AND closet racists; my friend from Greenaction was a Latina woman, so, to them, her needs didn't matter or fall in with their agenda. At the risk of spewing rhetoric here, this powerful mainstream International Action Centre/World Worker's Party front group have never heard the phrase "think globally, act locally", which is something my friend does on a daily basis while working for Greenaction. As for their closet racism, each time people in the global justice movement like International A.N.S.W.E.R. are confronted about that, they either ignore the persons confronting them, deny it or change the subject. On top of that, they continue to badmouth Anarchists for making the anti-war and anti-globalisation movements look bad with their presence and tactics-of-choice. This coming from an organisation that still supports left-wing tyrranical regimes/political leaders all over the globe [Slobodan Milosevic, anyone?].
[anarchoreformism
by cp Tuesday, Mar. 22, 2005 at 7:16 AM
Noam Chomsky has to be the most noted living anarchist writer, and people were digging on him for signing onto that list of leftists saying that the potential consequences are so grave right now with militarism w/ potential nuclear consequences, and global warming in addition to other things, that it was more important to get Kerry in office as a preventative measure, than to focus on party building or thinking about a radical solution, which wasn't about to happen. Even Winona LaDuke signed on. Chomsky always gets most of his bad press for weird petitions he signs rather than what he writes, probably because Horowitz etc. can't understand his books, but he has backed up the sentiment in speeches and writing. . . . . . . ]
Chomsky has recently advocated the reinstitution of the draft, which, without getting into the debate that we had on this topic several months ago, strikes me as a rather strange position for an anarchist, but much more consistent with the principles of socialists and communists
--Richard
by cp Tuesday, Mar. 22, 2005 at 7:16 AM
Noam Chomsky has to be the most noted living anarchist writer, and people were digging on him for signing onto that list of leftists saying that the potential consequences are so grave right now with militarism w/ potential nuclear consequences, and global warming in addition to other things, that it was more important to get Kerry in office as a preventative measure, than to focus on party building or thinking about a radical solution, which wasn't about to happen. Even Winona LaDuke signed on. Chomsky always gets most of his bad press for weird petitions he signs rather than what he writes, probably because Horowitz etc. can't understand his books, but he has backed up the sentiment in speeches and writing. . . . . . . ]
Chomsky has recently advocated the reinstitution of the draft, which, without getting into the debate that we had on this topic several months ago, strikes me as a rather strange position for an anarchist, but much more consistent with the principles of socialists and communists
--Richard
I think it is ANSWER policy to not promote other orgs events. I recall, can't remember exactly what rally, think it was around election time, a couple friends and I were puzzled that ANSWER was promoting a event they were throwing a week or two away, when there was a giant autonomous event happening the next day or something. They seem to cry no unity when people talk bad about them but when it comes to participating and contributing to the larger activist community they give nothing.
I have to admit they are good at getting permits, promotions and introducing new people to activism but who wouldn't with basically an unlimited money supply and full time paid employees. At the same time it appears that they use all those people that show up to boost their numbers and causes when people would show up to the event no matter who threw it, permit or not. Most of these events would probably end up being more fun and focused thrown autonomously anyways rather than the great big moo feast that they have been. Remember the invasion of Fallujah demonstration? Iraq and Fallujah were mention like 5 times, 0 focus on the reason people were out there. Guess it kinda shows how their intentions are to mould the masses minds to their views and way of think rather than allow the masses to be grow organically and represent itself.
I have more specifics as to their messed up policies of trying to hijack events but don't wanna get into it, think that was enough ranting for now. :)
I have to admit they are good at getting permits, promotions and introducing new people to activism but who wouldn't with basically an unlimited money supply and full time paid employees. At the same time it appears that they use all those people that show up to boost their numbers and causes when people would show up to the event no matter who threw it, permit or not. Most of these events would probably end up being more fun and focused thrown autonomously anyways rather than the great big moo feast that they have been. Remember the invasion of Fallujah demonstration? Iraq and Fallujah were mention like 5 times, 0 focus on the reason people were out there. Guess it kinda shows how their intentions are to mould the masses minds to their views and way of think rather than allow the masses to be grow organically and represent itself.
I have more specifics as to their messed up policies of trying to hijack events but don't wanna get into it, think that was enough ranting for now. :)
Historically, Communists AND Socialists are often sneaky, adaptable bastards, like you said. Each time Anarchists and Communists have teamed up with each other during a revolution, they succeeded in overthrowing an oppressive ruler. Then, once the revolution is won, Communists/ revolutionary Socialists had placed themselves in power and their former Anarchist allies were instantly killed off. If not killed off, violently beaten down. If not beaten down, imprisoned. If not imprisoned, their rights to free speech were censored. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was the ultimate example of how such a black-red united front can go bad. Conversely, each time a social justice org/collective will put together a demonstration or a campaign, in comes some Socialists to bring in their numbers and, in the end, take over what someone else started by claiming it as their own. International A.N.S.W.E.R. did that in their 1st couple years of existence. These examples are enough for me to quote my favourite local Rap artist, Emcee Lynx: "The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy".
In Libya an Anarchist follower of Bakunin (read the Green Book) worked to create a revolution and killed the Communists once he got power. Its really just an issue of power corrupting not something specific to an ideology.
Shake hands with a Bolshevik. Now count your fingers.
Right now we are all fighting for the same thing and the way things are actually going with the world, neither an Anarchist or a Communist future look at all likely. So, what's with the fighting? It's just a divide an conquer way to make Anarchists irrelevant. Police brutality, US invasions, oppression of workers, racism, homophobia... what's the difference between any Communist and Anarchist groups on these issues... if the most we can hope for is preventing the world from getting worse we need to unite because all the worries about our differences wont mean a thing when everyone Left of center gets arrested and thrown in jail.
No, we are not. Anarchists are fighting for a world without bosses. Bolsheviks are fighting for the boss's job. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Wont get fooled again.
"No, we are not. Anarchists are fighting for a world without bosses. Bolsheviks are fighting for the boss's job. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Wont get fooled again.
"
So you can quote the WHO. DId you know they actually supported the Iraq war?
If you really are afraid that the WWP, the RCP, the ISO, the SWP, Socialist Action, or any other Communist group is going to take over the US (or anyplace else) and endager your life, your living in a fantasy world. The US is shifting to the RIght and even though antiwar sentiments are growing it looks every unlikely that there will ever be even a center-left progressive government (let along a Communist or Socialist one) in any of our lifetimes. Being worried about what ANSWER will do after the revolution and using that to justify divisions is about as crazy as Christian sects going at each other over differences related to the 2nd comming.
If ANSWER is being authoritarian now, thats a reason not to work with them and to provide an alternatives (like organizing larges protests on your own), but dont sow divisions over a fear of something that will never happen.
"
So you can quote the WHO. DId you know they actually supported the Iraq war?
If you really are afraid that the WWP, the RCP, the ISO, the SWP, Socialist Action, or any other Communist group is going to take over the US (or anyplace else) and endager your life, your living in a fantasy world. The US is shifting to the RIght and even though antiwar sentiments are growing it looks every unlikely that there will ever be even a center-left progressive government (let along a Communist or Socialist one) in any of our lifetimes. Being worried about what ANSWER will do after the revolution and using that to justify divisions is about as crazy as Christian sects going at each other over differences related to the 2nd comming.
If ANSWER is being authoritarian now, thats a reason not to work with them and to provide an alternatives (like organizing larges protests on your own), but dont sow divisions over a fear of something that will never happen.
"If ANSWER is being authoritarian now, thats a reason not to work with them and to provide an alternatives (like organizing larges protests on your own), but dont sow divisions over a fear of something that will never happen."
Would be more concerned with during the revolution than after at this point i.e. protest highjacking, organizing hijacking, and all in all general not working well with others.
This is the reason ANSWER was basically turned down when they offered to help with the DNC to RNC. Then we have had that large successful autonomous actions look at RTC/RTS back in June which was a blast; why did ANSWER decide to organize an antiwar march on the weekend connected to that autonomous week of action? Looks to me like they were attempting to ride the coat-tails and connect their name to the week any way they could, just like the counter-inaugeration, still think most people outside the activist community think ANSWER organized the entire counter-inaugeration. Then there was the NYC RNC, I'm sure everyone remembers the confusion they caused...
Would be more concerned with during the revolution than after at this point i.e. protest highjacking, organizing hijacking, and all in all general not working well with others.
This is the reason ANSWER was basically turned down when they offered to help with the DNC to RNC. Then we have had that large successful autonomous actions look at RTC/RTS back in June which was a blast; why did ANSWER decide to organize an antiwar march on the weekend connected to that autonomous week of action? Looks to me like they were attempting to ride the coat-tails and connect their name to the week any way they could, just like the counter-inaugeration, still think most people outside the activist community think ANSWER organized the entire counter-inaugeration. Then there was the NYC RNC, I'm sure everyone remembers the confusion they caused...
This begs the question, by assuming that organizing largest protests is a worthwhile use of our time, energy and resources. Nothing could be further from the truth. Two years ago last Saturday the single largest protest in human history was held. Somewhere between 12 and 20 million people (depending on whose version you believe) protested on the same day on at least four continents. It had no effect whatsoever. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
What we learned from this, or should have learned, is that we can march in the streets till we’re blue in the face, but our rulers don’t give a rat’s ass. They don’t have to, so why should they? Protests are no threat to their power, not even a little one. Power is what they’re all about. To them, everything else is ancillary. Our opinion, our wishes, our hopes and fears aren’t even in the equation.
And what are all about? That depends on how well we learn from the past. But a case can be made that at the moment, we’re at least partly insane. Among the more cogent definitions of insanity is that it’s when people do the same thing, over and over, and expect it to turn out differently next time. By that standard, an awful lot of us are full bore, bull goose loonies. When something isn’t working, sane people stop doing it and try something else. Barking moonbats try again.
Boringly predictable street theater will not change the world. Theater will not change the world. It would if we were ruled by symbols. But alas. We are men, rich men, and to a lesser extent by their stooges. In the face of concrete power, symbolic actions are useless. The only thing we gain from organizing large scale protests, or any protest, are phone numbers and email address that could just as easily be collected at meetings and actions where something actually constructive got done.
What we learned from this, or should have learned, is that we can march in the streets till we’re blue in the face, but our rulers don’t give a rat’s ass. They don’t have to, so why should they? Protests are no threat to their power, not even a little one. Power is what they’re all about. To them, everything else is ancillary. Our opinion, our wishes, our hopes and fears aren’t even in the equation.
And what are all about? That depends on how well we learn from the past. But a case can be made that at the moment, we’re at least partly insane. Among the more cogent definitions of insanity is that it’s when people do the same thing, over and over, and expect it to turn out differently next time. By that standard, an awful lot of us are full bore, bull goose loonies. When something isn’t working, sane people stop doing it and try something else. Barking moonbats try again.
Boringly predictable street theater will not change the world. Theater will not change the world. It would if we were ruled by symbols. But alas. We are men, rich men, and to a lesser extent by their stooges. In the face of concrete power, symbolic actions are useless. The only thing we gain from organizing large scale protests, or any protest, are phone numbers and email address that could just as easily be collected at meetings and actions where something actually constructive got done.
Another theory is that it's stupidity. I prefer to believe that it's ignorance. Time will tell.
concrete power can come from symbolic actions and oftern does
not overnight, of course, but someone has to step forward and say "no" first before others can follow that example and create real power with a collective power-shifting "no" (think Rosa Parks et al)
the first person, or group of people, to step forward have no real power. naysayers could somewhat reasonably ask what they have accomplished, especially when the initial expected majority backlash comes against the avantguard of whatever movement. the first-steppers are blamed for causing anger toward the cause quite often
those Feb 15th-ers (and 16th in SF) protesting worldwide indeed did not stop the war from happenning -- not enough to storm DC and halls of power -- but they helped create an environment whereby now a majority of those in the US think the war was a mistake. if no one had stepped forward, others would think no one objected to the war and likely now would not disfavor it. it hasn't reached a point whereby even a simple majority is enough but that's a significant shift from the 70% who were gung-ho prior to the bombs dropping. I don't think that shift can soley be attributed to bad news coming out of Iraq, at least some of it is due to diligence of anti-war activists.
lastly, I can't help but wonder what those supposedly constructive actions were that got something done that were referred to by "bunk logic", especially in light of the failure of anyone and anything in stopping the US war machine of late. how can you say one thing was so much more successful than another when all tactics are falling short of creating the required critical mass for real power to stop the US war machine?
not overnight, of course, but someone has to step forward and say "no" first before others can follow that example and create real power with a collective power-shifting "no" (think Rosa Parks et al)
the first person, or group of people, to step forward have no real power. naysayers could somewhat reasonably ask what they have accomplished, especially when the initial expected majority backlash comes against the avantguard of whatever movement. the first-steppers are blamed for causing anger toward the cause quite often
those Feb 15th-ers (and 16th in SF) protesting worldwide indeed did not stop the war from happenning -- not enough to storm DC and halls of power -- but they helped create an environment whereby now a majority of those in the US think the war was a mistake. if no one had stepped forward, others would think no one objected to the war and likely now would not disfavor it. it hasn't reached a point whereby even a simple majority is enough but that's a significant shift from the 70% who were gung-ho prior to the bombs dropping. I don't think that shift can soley be attributed to bad news coming out of Iraq, at least some of it is due to diligence of anti-war activists.
lastly, I can't help but wonder what those supposedly constructive actions were that got something done that were referred to by "bunk logic", especially in light of the failure of anyone and anything in stopping the US war machine of late. how can you say one thing was so much more successful than another when all tactics are falling short of creating the required critical mass for real power to stop the US war machine?
>they helped create an environment whereby now a majority of those in the US think the war was a mistake.
What created an environment whereby now a majority of those in the US think the war was a mistake was the war having been proved on the ground to be a mistake. If America was winning the war, most Americans would not think it was a mistake.
>how can you say one thing was so much more successful than another when all tactics are falling short of creating the required critical mass for real power to stop the US war machine?
I didn’t. Stop putting words into my mouth.
I said we *should* be doing something constructive. organizing to stop the war wouldn’t even be constructive if were successful, because sooner or later, probably sooner, there would be another war. Organizing against war is like putting a band aid on a tumor. A bigger band aid wont help. War is a symptom. We need to address the root cause, capitalism. The sole and only way to do that successfully is to create viable alternatives. Want to do something constructive? Work to build a global network of interlocking, interdependent mutual aid societies. Start with our own, right here in the Bay Area. Oops, I forgot. We don’t have one.
But we could. We have all the necessary ingredients. We just need to do it. I’m ready. Are you?
What created an environment whereby now a majority of those in the US think the war was a mistake was the war having been proved on the ground to be a mistake. If America was winning the war, most Americans would not think it was a mistake.
>how can you say one thing was so much more successful than another when all tactics are falling short of creating the required critical mass for real power to stop the US war machine?
I didn’t. Stop putting words into my mouth.
I said we *should* be doing something constructive. organizing to stop the war wouldn’t even be constructive if were successful, because sooner or later, probably sooner, there would be another war. Organizing against war is like putting a band aid on a tumor. A bigger band aid wont help. War is a symptom. We need to address the root cause, capitalism. The sole and only way to do that successfully is to create viable alternatives. Want to do something constructive? Work to build a global network of interlocking, interdependent mutual aid societies. Start with our own, right here in the Bay Area. Oops, I forgot. We don’t have one.
But we could. We have all the necessary ingredients. We just need to do it. I’m ready. Are you?
no need to be so snippy. "how can you say one thing was so much more successful than another...?" "I didn't" but you did imply it with "something actually constructive got done" juxtaposed with your protesting "barking moonbats" comments. note that I had already pointed out "I don't think that shift (in opinion) can soley be attributed to bad news coming out of Iraq" and added that I think "at least some of it is due to diligence of anti-war activists" which includes protests
I agree that society can be seriously re-organized for the better and that war is a symptom in many ways of a sick society, but analogies can only take us so far in that on the macro societal level it is often far more realistic to treat a symptom than to re-invent the entire organism. I believe it is right to fight wars rather than to turn our heads and focus singly on building a new society. I do not see why the two cannot happen concurrently. There are other issues as well that can be dealt with in long and short term ways at the same time.
As for your "We have all the necessary ingredients" -- I am not so sure. The #1 ingredient as far as I can gather is people, and there certainly are not a flood of people just waiting to radically re-organize society on entirely new precepts. That's where it circles back to protests again, I think, at least in the sense of trying to get out the word that there is dissent to the powers that be and there are alternate viewpoints, even if the mainstream press largely ignores events like this past weekend's.
I agree that society can be seriously re-organized for the better and that war is a symptom in many ways of a sick society, but analogies can only take us so far in that on the macro societal level it is often far more realistic to treat a symptom than to re-invent the entire organism. I believe it is right to fight wars rather than to turn our heads and focus singly on building a new society. I do not see why the two cannot happen concurrently. There are other issues as well that can be dealt with in long and short term ways at the same time.
As for your "We have all the necessary ingredients" -- I am not so sure. The #1 ingredient as far as I can gather is people, and there certainly are not a flood of people just waiting to radically re-organize society on entirely new precepts. That's where it circles back to protests again, I think, at least in the sense of trying to get out the word that there is dissent to the powers that be and there are alternate viewpoints, even if the mainstream press largely ignores events like this past weekend's.
"A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - - Margaret Mead
We have more ingredients than you probably know about, or maybe even imagine. As for the people to kick it off, it won't take that many, at least at first. We have to start somewhere. Let's start with you and me. Since it is well known that we don't particularly like each other, or agree on many things, we'd be ideal. This thing will never work if it only includes people who like each other and agree upon everything. For this to work, people need to be able to keep their personal likes and dislikes, as well as any irrelevant disagrements, out of the meeting. So who could set a better example than we could? I say, let's go for it. I can provide a meeting space, and also bring friends. Any night except Wedensdays, after eight PM, is good for me. What about you? When is good for you? What and who can you bring? Should we have a sign up list? An agenda?
We have more ingredients than you probably know about, or maybe even imagine. As for the people to kick it off, it won't take that many, at least at first. We have to start somewhere. Let's start with you and me. Since it is well known that we don't particularly like each other, or agree on many things, we'd be ideal. This thing will never work if it only includes people who like each other and agree upon everything. For this to work, people need to be able to keep their personal likes and dislikes, as well as any irrelevant disagrements, out of the meeting. So who could set a better example than we could? I say, let's go for it. I can provide a meeting space, and also bring friends. Any night except Wedensdays, after eight PM, is good for me. What about you? When is good for you? What and who can you bring? Should we have a sign up list? An agenda?
hellohello,
this is a bit off topic but i think this is the best avenue to get some answers. I was hit to the ground on Valencia around the time those 9 brave men and women were arrested. As I was in the street I ran into a line of cops and was struck.Unfortunately, I was shooken up and quite baffled at the moment in which my conscious did not kick in and tell me to get the badge number or name of the cop. I was wondering if anyone had any
more footage..flics or video of anymore of the events that happened that day, so perhaps I can get his name or badge # to at the least file a complaint. I have some legal support, but it's up to me to get the info..so if anyone can help me out with resources that would
be greatly appreciated. much thanks.!
this is a bit off topic but i think this is the best avenue to get some answers. I was hit to the ground on Valencia around the time those 9 brave men and women were arrested. As I was in the street I ran into a line of cops and was struck.Unfortunately, I was shooken up and quite baffled at the moment in which my conscious did not kick in and tell me to get the badge number or name of the cop. I was wondering if anyone had any
more footage..flics or video of anymore of the events that happened that day, so perhaps I can get his name or badge # to at the least file a complaint. I have some legal support, but it's up to me to get the info..so if anyone can help me out with resources that would
be greatly appreciated. much thanks.!
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$320.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network