Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Are We Addicted to Rioting?
An analysis of militant-street protest, movement strategy, and the state of anarchism. Based around the G20 Pittsburgh demonstrations.
By: Ryan Harvey - September 24, 2009
The G20 is upon us, and though BBC world news featured some of "the troubles" in Pittsburgh, on the ground reports hardly match up with the media-inflation, police-inflation, and activist-inflation of the actual thing.
As is often the case, the media makes things look a whole lot crazier than they actually are, if it's in the interests of higher ratings. And though most Americans if surveyed would be against rioting, they love to watch it on TV. So the media is hyping the G20 protests up enough to get some extra points, but not enough to anger their parent companies.
The police of course have to inflate the threats posed by relatively small numbers of protestors to justify the gigantic amount of city, state and federal tax-payer money used to buy new weapons, vehicles, chemical munitions, and armor. They get to keep all these goodies to use against whomever crosses their path in the future. So little pebbles getting tossed at robo-cops become boulders and little marches becoming security threats.
To match these two forces, the protest groups, especially my own comrades in the anarchist groups, inflate their stories, numbers, and actions to try to gain support and build momentum, and to make them feel better. So a dumpster getting rolled down a street into an intersection will be heroized in well-designed pamphlets to come and talked about for years the way my generation still talks about the fence-chasing incident at A16, (World Bank/IMF protests on April 16, 2000 in DC).
What is so crazy about all of this, this inflation is that it doesn't seem to help. As an organizer with a decade of experience in all types of work, from anarchist organizations to peace groups to labor organizing, I don't think over-hyping our actions does anything for us. In fact, I think it works to our disadvantage. It adds to a culture of dishonesty, of not addressing our shortcomings, of not reflecting and refining our work.
Now Pittsburgh had a crowd of 4,000-10,000 people according to different reports. While this is a big number in general, it's not so big compared to public opinions on such issues at the bailout, corporate executive bonuses, or the global economic order in general. Most folks in the U.S. are pretty angry, from the far left to the independent right/libertarians. Instead of congratulating ourselves on a "large turnout", we should be asking why it wasn't nearly size of most anti-war demonstrations that have happened. Not to put ourselves down in anyway, but to consider the factors so that we can go about building a stronger movement for economic justice. When we don't look into these factors, we are walking blind.
Another major issue in these protests is that when militant groups over-hype themselves before-hand, to make themselves seem bigger, more powerful, and often more willing to use violence or property destruction, they invite and allow public justification for large, well-funded and well-equipped police action... And they are not prepared to take it. They are usually fronting, thinking that talking big will make the actual thing big. This is not how organizing works. You actually have to do the work, not just front like you have. You end up in dangerous situations when you do this.
A flimsy PVC-reinforced banner is not going to last long against a few riot-police, it never has. I've seen it many times and it's never done anything more than look cool in a photo to those who've never seen the damn things break on impact. I once saw a cop beat an anarchist with a piece of his own broken PVC "shield" banner.
I came from this scene, learned all the tactical terms, and met many good people who I ran in the streets with, and we got into some crazy situations. I have been around the bloc a few times. I have inhaled tear gas and pepper spray, heard the close-up clicks on the infamous taser, and heard the sobering sounds of riot batons breaking human bones. I once saw a guy almost burn a hole in his hand throwing a tear gas canister back at the police in Quebec City in 2001. At the beginning of the Iraq war, I helped drag a 16 year-old girl away from a group of police who were beating her in DC. Both her ankles and one of her arms were broken. In Miami in 2003, I heard the explosion of "less-lethal" weapons and heard a loud pop next to me. As I turned, a middle-aged woman was starting to run away with blood literally pouring out of her mouth. She had been hit in the face with a rubber bullet.
After that incident I began a long reflective process, one that started in the bloodstained streets of Miami and hasn't stopped yet, hopefully it never will. Something clicked when the blood poured out of this woman's mouth; this is for real. I am really here and we are really getting the shit kicked out of us. What before seemed sort of fun, sort of therapeutic, sort of educational, now seemed totally dangerous, serious, and life-threatening.
It also became clear that our actions in the streets were not usually connected to any real strategy to achieve change, no goals that we could attain, no real meaning for being there at that time, besides to ruin the party for the bigwigs. Not that that's a bad thing to do, it's just not worth my eye, hand, or life. It went on like this for years for me before I sobered up, took a step back, and realized I was in the middle of a big mess, a mess with very few details. It was like a messy room that only has large furniture in it, no scraps of paper, no old dishes, no crumbs. Everything upon observation was really clear, it was obvious what was wrong.
I began to think about my purpose for protest, my desire for economic and social justice, peace, and equality. As I reflected, I became disillusioned with protest, burned out, depressed, and lost. It took a while to crawl out of it, but I came out on top. I learned a lot during my down time and came to some understandings.
One of the clearest understandings I reached, one that was really solidified recently after reading a book called War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges, is that me and many friends were pretty much addicted to these intense street situations. We were engaging in "combat scenarios" and really, to a scary degree, creating mini-war scenes where we could play out some strange fantasies.
War is A Force That Gives Us Meaning talks about the strange attraction that people have to war, even those highly opposed to it. Even those scarred by it, terrified by it, and deeply effected by it. Some go into war and get real messed up, vowing to never return, only to soon find themselves desiring that adrenaline, the fear, the intensity. Hedges was a journalist in Bosnia, El Salvador, Lebanon, and Iraq. He realized after many years that he was experiencing a type of addiction, seeking a high that can only be attained in a combat situation.
I fear that we too, anarchists and street militants, have similar symptoms. We intentionally go into situations that we know are dangerous, that we often know don't really have any solid plan. Maybe it's part machismo, maybe it's part desperation, maybe it's part legit too, but I think it's a lot of high-seeking. We desire the intensity, the rush. We get to enact roles that we don't get to enact in our everyday lives, heroism, bravery, sacrifice, quick thinking, fear-testing, and some forms of solidarity. We also get to experience prison, pain, and life-changing trauma.
All of this is well worth it if we have our eyes on the prize and are fully aware of the risks, reasons, and responsibilities of these types of actions. The risks are obvious, the reasons usually are few and far between (meaning we usually don't have a very sound strategic approach to protest that results in the real changes we desire). The responsibilities are usually totally missing, aside from street medics and basic legal support. But larger ones, like trauma support for years afterwards, support for those abused in prison, networks of real care and compassion like those veterans have created with groups like Vets 4 Vets and Homefront Battle Buddies to heal from the painful experiences of violence, don't exist yet.
I have seen all of this go pretty much unnoticed by those of us who organized actions that resulted in the trauma, like those of us who helped organize in Miami. A lot of us who were there learned that lesson real quick afterwards, but a bit too late. I know a woman who has full audio/visual flashbacks from Miami, another parallel with war, and a common symptom of PTSD. Many of my friends have PTSD from their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would not be surprising if many of us have been coping with similar effects from Philadelphia, Miami, DC, and St. Paul and didn't know it because we are not in a movement that is prepared to handle or reflective enough to admit such things.
While the experiences of violence can easily change you, I don't want to dwell on this too much. I don't want my point to get blurred. I'm not scared of violence all the time. I'm not against violence all the time. I'm not against riots all the time, and I'm not against folks putting themselves in harms way just to prove a point all the time. But I am no longer lending my support to these acts if they are not solidly rooted in an organizational and movement-wide foundation, supported by large numbers of people who understand their purpose and the steps to take afterwards. If we are "stepping it up" or "escalating" without the massive numbers of people that we were previously standing with, we are losing people, and are thus destined to fail. I don't want to be in a people-less movement, I want to build strong movements that can take bold and seemingly dangerous steps together, growing as they move forward. This can justify the risk.
On the question of "Violence VS Non-Violence" I opt out. I respond with a better question: "What is your goal?". Then I consider the goals, how they link up to a larger strategy, and how it effects its movement as a whole. "Will it make you stronger?". "Will it hurt your organizing efforts?". These are the relevant questions. Then I ask, "What do you need to do to achieve your goal?". Then I consider the question of violence or non-violence. It's more of a tactical concern, and tactical concerns stem from a goal, which usually stems from an even bigger goal, which stems from a strategy.
If you roll a dumpster at the police, why are you doing it? To prove a point? To block a street? To open a street? To cause a diversion to pull off another action? To impress the media? To impress your friends? To get it out of the way? To get it in the way? These are relevant questions, far more relevant than whether or not it's morally acceptable to roll a dumpster around. But then you must ask yourself why you are trying to achieve that tactical goal. Are you blockading a meeting? Are you causing chaos to make the summit look bad? Are you trying to get media attention? Do you want revenge on the police? Then you must ask yourself why you are blockading the meeting or causing chaos or trying to get on TV. Who are you trying to effect? Who's your base? If you want media attention, who are you trying to reach out to? What is your message for them? If you are trying to cause chaos, what is the purpose? Who is it serving? How is it advancing your goals? What effect will it have on your movement next week, next month, next year? What is the follow-up to all of this?
That's how winning movements think. Those are the critical questions to ask, among others. Unfortunately, I never experienced a single anarchist group that considered any of this. We just went out and did the craziest stuff, had a few parties/events in the next few months, and started the next round of last-minute militant protest organizing, building for our next street-fantasy, the omnipresent and mythological "next Seattle". We were chasing a high that we didn't even understand.
In pursuit of this high, we got lost in our own imagery and rhetoric. We convinced ourselves that we, the anarchists, were the movement. We were the ones who were important, the ones who made the difference between a dinky permitted march and a history-making mobilization. We used Seattle as the ultra-reference, where a group of a few dozen black bloc anarchists caused over 4 million dollars in property damage. Nevermind the other 49,000 + people in Seattle's actions, sacrifices, and hard work. Nevermind the union workers rushing into downtown to defend those doing civil disobedience. Nevermind those who locked down peacefully or used human chains to blockade delegate hotels. We were too obsessed with ourselves to let other folks steal out glory. We called them all "liberals", and this was the ultimate diss.
A recent Crimethinc report on the Pittsburgh G20 says that the black bloc-portion of the protests "signifies the survival of militant street resistance in the Obama era.". But I ask to what end? Militant street resistance against what? For what? What kind of vague movement are we part of if we discuss our tactics as if they are the very point of using them? Is "militant street protest" an end in itself? Why? What about the "survival of a sustained movement for economic justice"? Why don't we discuss the things we are working for? Are we working for "militant street protests" or are we working towards a broad social goal? Do anarchists no longer think in terms of issues, goals, or things they care about? Just vague notions of "freedom" (like the freedom to light a dumpster on fire) or "resistance" (a habit of attending and organizing semi-annual pre-staged battles with the police)?
This insurrectionary rhetoric that is so popular today among us young anarchists is belittling and destroying anarchism. It's turning it into a mythic fantasy world, where things magically change because someone breaks a window or quits their job. And it's pulling a lot of young people into situations where they are often hurting long-term movements for change, rather than reinforcing them. Today's "Anarchism" is too disconnected from larger movements, too fragmented in it's own, and too carried away with it's own romanticism.
These are serious critiques and questions from a comrade, someone who throws their heart into positive work every day for serious, radical social change. I write not to piss my friends off or put people down, but to challenge -urge- my friends to think very critically, very... Critically enough to make a meeting suck. Enough to make you really frustrated. Enough to spark heated but respectful discussion. Enough to make the work hard and controversial. It's not supposed to be this fun. The fun comes from the struggle. The fun is in light of the struggle. We don't struggle enough. We play around issues, organizing these events where we experience "street liberation", the high, and then spend the next few months coming down from it until we re-up. Crimethinc mentions the great high later in the same article, without admitting the contradictions of this strange addiction: "No words can do justice to this experience, but it is real".
Is that why you take the streets, fellow anarchists? Are you searching for that feeling that cannot be explained? That adrenaline rush, that fear? Ask yourself this, and ask it in a serious way. Because if you, are you should reconsider your role in social movements, how you participate, how your actions reverberate, what effects they have on others. And perhaps you should take a deep breath and consider your priorities and those of the people around you. There's too much at stake to waste our time and energy preparing for and executing these theater-like confrontations.
The anarchist groups are full of good people, committed, and hopefully those who will help contribute to positive social changes in our lifetimes. It is for you, the committed anarchists, that I write this. I want you to take my words seriously, because we have a lot of work to do, and most of it is not going to get done in the streets. It's going to get done on the doorsteps, the libraries, the churches, the labor halls, the schools, the military bases, the parks, the prisons, the abortion clinics, the neighborhood associations, the PTAs. And whatever it is, it's not going to be called Anarchism and it's not going to look like what you think it's going to look like. It's going to be new, fresh, original, organic, unique, and real. And it's going to be a combination of all of our society's best politics, ideas, experiences, and sincerity. And we are going to help make it happen.
Let's take anarchism out of the streets for a while and put it back in the communities where it was born.
The G20 is upon us, and though BBC world news featured some of "the troubles" in Pittsburgh, on the ground reports hardly match up with the media-inflation, police-inflation, and activist-inflation of the actual thing.
As is often the case, the media makes things look a whole lot crazier than they actually are, if it's in the interests of higher ratings. And though most Americans if surveyed would be against rioting, they love to watch it on TV. So the media is hyping the G20 protests up enough to get some extra points, but not enough to anger their parent companies.
The police of course have to inflate the threats posed by relatively small numbers of protestors to justify the gigantic amount of city, state and federal tax-payer money used to buy new weapons, vehicles, chemical munitions, and armor. They get to keep all these goodies to use against whomever crosses their path in the future. So little pebbles getting tossed at robo-cops become boulders and little marches becoming security threats.
To match these two forces, the protest groups, especially my own comrades in the anarchist groups, inflate their stories, numbers, and actions to try to gain support and build momentum, and to make them feel better. So a dumpster getting rolled down a street into an intersection will be heroized in well-designed pamphlets to come and talked about for years the way my generation still talks about the fence-chasing incident at A16, (World Bank/IMF protests on April 16, 2000 in DC).
What is so crazy about all of this, this inflation is that it doesn't seem to help. As an organizer with a decade of experience in all types of work, from anarchist organizations to peace groups to labor organizing, I don't think over-hyping our actions does anything for us. In fact, I think it works to our disadvantage. It adds to a culture of dishonesty, of not addressing our shortcomings, of not reflecting and refining our work.
Now Pittsburgh had a crowd of 4,000-10,000 people according to different reports. While this is a big number in general, it's not so big compared to public opinions on such issues at the bailout, corporate executive bonuses, or the global economic order in general. Most folks in the U.S. are pretty angry, from the far left to the independent right/libertarians. Instead of congratulating ourselves on a "large turnout", we should be asking why it wasn't nearly size of most anti-war demonstrations that have happened. Not to put ourselves down in anyway, but to consider the factors so that we can go about building a stronger movement for economic justice. When we don't look into these factors, we are walking blind.
Another major issue in these protests is that when militant groups over-hype themselves before-hand, to make themselves seem bigger, more powerful, and often more willing to use violence or property destruction, they invite and allow public justification for large, well-funded and well-equipped police action... And they are not prepared to take it. They are usually fronting, thinking that talking big will make the actual thing big. This is not how organizing works. You actually have to do the work, not just front like you have. You end up in dangerous situations when you do this.
A flimsy PVC-reinforced banner is not going to last long against a few riot-police, it never has. I've seen it many times and it's never done anything more than look cool in a photo to those who've never seen the damn things break on impact. I once saw a cop beat an anarchist with a piece of his own broken PVC "shield" banner.
I came from this scene, learned all the tactical terms, and met many good people who I ran in the streets with, and we got into some crazy situations. I have been around the bloc a few times. I have inhaled tear gas and pepper spray, heard the close-up clicks on the infamous taser, and heard the sobering sounds of riot batons breaking human bones. I once saw a guy almost burn a hole in his hand throwing a tear gas canister back at the police in Quebec City in 2001. At the beginning of the Iraq war, I helped drag a 16 year-old girl away from a group of police who were beating her in DC. Both her ankles and one of her arms were broken. In Miami in 2003, I heard the explosion of "less-lethal" weapons and heard a loud pop next to me. As I turned, a middle-aged woman was starting to run away with blood literally pouring out of her mouth. She had been hit in the face with a rubber bullet.
After that incident I began a long reflective process, one that started in the bloodstained streets of Miami and hasn't stopped yet, hopefully it never will. Something clicked when the blood poured out of this woman's mouth; this is for real. I am really here and we are really getting the shit kicked out of us. What before seemed sort of fun, sort of therapeutic, sort of educational, now seemed totally dangerous, serious, and life-threatening.
It also became clear that our actions in the streets were not usually connected to any real strategy to achieve change, no goals that we could attain, no real meaning for being there at that time, besides to ruin the party for the bigwigs. Not that that's a bad thing to do, it's just not worth my eye, hand, or life. It went on like this for years for me before I sobered up, took a step back, and realized I was in the middle of a big mess, a mess with very few details. It was like a messy room that only has large furniture in it, no scraps of paper, no old dishes, no crumbs. Everything upon observation was really clear, it was obvious what was wrong.
I began to think about my purpose for protest, my desire for economic and social justice, peace, and equality. As I reflected, I became disillusioned with protest, burned out, depressed, and lost. It took a while to crawl out of it, but I came out on top. I learned a lot during my down time and came to some understandings.
One of the clearest understandings I reached, one that was really solidified recently after reading a book called War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges, is that me and many friends were pretty much addicted to these intense street situations. We were engaging in "combat scenarios" and really, to a scary degree, creating mini-war scenes where we could play out some strange fantasies.
War is A Force That Gives Us Meaning talks about the strange attraction that people have to war, even those highly opposed to it. Even those scarred by it, terrified by it, and deeply effected by it. Some go into war and get real messed up, vowing to never return, only to soon find themselves desiring that adrenaline, the fear, the intensity. Hedges was a journalist in Bosnia, El Salvador, Lebanon, and Iraq. He realized after many years that he was experiencing a type of addiction, seeking a high that can only be attained in a combat situation.
I fear that we too, anarchists and street militants, have similar symptoms. We intentionally go into situations that we know are dangerous, that we often know don't really have any solid plan. Maybe it's part machismo, maybe it's part desperation, maybe it's part legit too, but I think it's a lot of high-seeking. We desire the intensity, the rush. We get to enact roles that we don't get to enact in our everyday lives, heroism, bravery, sacrifice, quick thinking, fear-testing, and some forms of solidarity. We also get to experience prison, pain, and life-changing trauma.
All of this is well worth it if we have our eyes on the prize and are fully aware of the risks, reasons, and responsibilities of these types of actions. The risks are obvious, the reasons usually are few and far between (meaning we usually don't have a very sound strategic approach to protest that results in the real changes we desire). The responsibilities are usually totally missing, aside from street medics and basic legal support. But larger ones, like trauma support for years afterwards, support for those abused in prison, networks of real care and compassion like those veterans have created with groups like Vets 4 Vets and Homefront Battle Buddies to heal from the painful experiences of violence, don't exist yet.
I have seen all of this go pretty much unnoticed by those of us who organized actions that resulted in the trauma, like those of us who helped organize in Miami. A lot of us who were there learned that lesson real quick afterwards, but a bit too late. I know a woman who has full audio/visual flashbacks from Miami, another parallel with war, and a common symptom of PTSD. Many of my friends have PTSD from their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would not be surprising if many of us have been coping with similar effects from Philadelphia, Miami, DC, and St. Paul and didn't know it because we are not in a movement that is prepared to handle or reflective enough to admit such things.
While the experiences of violence can easily change you, I don't want to dwell on this too much. I don't want my point to get blurred. I'm not scared of violence all the time. I'm not against violence all the time. I'm not against riots all the time, and I'm not against folks putting themselves in harms way just to prove a point all the time. But I am no longer lending my support to these acts if they are not solidly rooted in an organizational and movement-wide foundation, supported by large numbers of people who understand their purpose and the steps to take afterwards. If we are "stepping it up" or "escalating" without the massive numbers of people that we were previously standing with, we are losing people, and are thus destined to fail. I don't want to be in a people-less movement, I want to build strong movements that can take bold and seemingly dangerous steps together, growing as they move forward. This can justify the risk.
On the question of "Violence VS Non-Violence" I opt out. I respond with a better question: "What is your goal?". Then I consider the goals, how they link up to a larger strategy, and how it effects its movement as a whole. "Will it make you stronger?". "Will it hurt your organizing efforts?". These are the relevant questions. Then I ask, "What do you need to do to achieve your goal?". Then I consider the question of violence or non-violence. It's more of a tactical concern, and tactical concerns stem from a goal, which usually stems from an even bigger goal, which stems from a strategy.
If you roll a dumpster at the police, why are you doing it? To prove a point? To block a street? To open a street? To cause a diversion to pull off another action? To impress the media? To impress your friends? To get it out of the way? To get it in the way? These are relevant questions, far more relevant than whether or not it's morally acceptable to roll a dumpster around. But then you must ask yourself why you are trying to achieve that tactical goal. Are you blockading a meeting? Are you causing chaos to make the summit look bad? Are you trying to get media attention? Do you want revenge on the police? Then you must ask yourself why you are blockading the meeting or causing chaos or trying to get on TV. Who are you trying to effect? Who's your base? If you want media attention, who are you trying to reach out to? What is your message for them? If you are trying to cause chaos, what is the purpose? Who is it serving? How is it advancing your goals? What effect will it have on your movement next week, next month, next year? What is the follow-up to all of this?
That's how winning movements think. Those are the critical questions to ask, among others. Unfortunately, I never experienced a single anarchist group that considered any of this. We just went out and did the craziest stuff, had a few parties/events in the next few months, and started the next round of last-minute militant protest organizing, building for our next street-fantasy, the omnipresent and mythological "next Seattle". We were chasing a high that we didn't even understand.
In pursuit of this high, we got lost in our own imagery and rhetoric. We convinced ourselves that we, the anarchists, were the movement. We were the ones who were important, the ones who made the difference between a dinky permitted march and a history-making mobilization. We used Seattle as the ultra-reference, where a group of a few dozen black bloc anarchists caused over 4 million dollars in property damage. Nevermind the other 49,000 + people in Seattle's actions, sacrifices, and hard work. Nevermind the union workers rushing into downtown to defend those doing civil disobedience. Nevermind those who locked down peacefully or used human chains to blockade delegate hotels. We were too obsessed with ourselves to let other folks steal out glory. We called them all "liberals", and this was the ultimate diss.
A recent Crimethinc report on the Pittsburgh G20 says that the black bloc-portion of the protests "signifies the survival of militant street resistance in the Obama era.". But I ask to what end? Militant street resistance against what? For what? What kind of vague movement are we part of if we discuss our tactics as if they are the very point of using them? Is "militant street protest" an end in itself? Why? What about the "survival of a sustained movement for economic justice"? Why don't we discuss the things we are working for? Are we working for "militant street protests" or are we working towards a broad social goal? Do anarchists no longer think in terms of issues, goals, or things they care about? Just vague notions of "freedom" (like the freedom to light a dumpster on fire) or "resistance" (a habit of attending and organizing semi-annual pre-staged battles with the police)?
This insurrectionary rhetoric that is so popular today among us young anarchists is belittling and destroying anarchism. It's turning it into a mythic fantasy world, where things magically change because someone breaks a window or quits their job. And it's pulling a lot of young people into situations where they are often hurting long-term movements for change, rather than reinforcing them. Today's "Anarchism" is too disconnected from larger movements, too fragmented in it's own, and too carried away with it's own romanticism.
These are serious critiques and questions from a comrade, someone who throws their heart into positive work every day for serious, radical social change. I write not to piss my friends off or put people down, but to challenge -urge- my friends to think very critically, very... Critically enough to make a meeting suck. Enough to make you really frustrated. Enough to spark heated but respectful discussion. Enough to make the work hard and controversial. It's not supposed to be this fun. The fun comes from the struggle. The fun is in light of the struggle. We don't struggle enough. We play around issues, organizing these events where we experience "street liberation", the high, and then spend the next few months coming down from it until we re-up. Crimethinc mentions the great high later in the same article, without admitting the contradictions of this strange addiction: "No words can do justice to this experience, but it is real".
Is that why you take the streets, fellow anarchists? Are you searching for that feeling that cannot be explained? That adrenaline rush, that fear? Ask yourself this, and ask it in a serious way. Because if you, are you should reconsider your role in social movements, how you participate, how your actions reverberate, what effects they have on others. And perhaps you should take a deep breath and consider your priorities and those of the people around you. There's too much at stake to waste our time and energy preparing for and executing these theater-like confrontations.
The anarchist groups are full of good people, committed, and hopefully those who will help contribute to positive social changes in our lifetimes. It is for you, the committed anarchists, that I write this. I want you to take my words seriously, because we have a lot of work to do, and most of it is not going to get done in the streets. It's going to get done on the doorsteps, the libraries, the churches, the labor halls, the schools, the military bases, the parks, the prisons, the abortion clinics, the neighborhood associations, the PTAs. And whatever it is, it's not going to be called Anarchism and it's not going to look like what you think it's going to look like. It's going to be new, fresh, original, organic, unique, and real. And it's going to be a combination of all of our society's best politics, ideas, experiences, and sincerity. And we are going to help make it happen.
Let's take anarchism out of the streets for a while and put it back in the communities where it was born.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
As a person who was in Pittsburgh, while Ryan was not, it’s somewhat frustrating to read in the first paragraph of his article that “on the ground reports” don’t match up with the “…activist inflation of the actual thing.” As an activist who was on the ground, does that mean that my perspective is illegitimate (“inflation”) if it conflicts with the reports Ryan heard, while Ryan’s perspective is legitimate?
On the strength of my firsthand experience, I believe that, contrary to Ryan’s impression from a distance, the Pittsburgh G20 Resistance Project and others did “do the work” of organizing more broadly participatory direct-action-oriented protest than has been seen in recent years. I agree with Ryan that we could do much better and we need to do much better. But it is downright stupid to criticize the work of those who really are making that effort, especially when Ryan was not there, apparently putting his efforts elsewhere. One basic rule of thumb about these things is that those who were not present should listen to those who were, rather than rushing to shout them down in order to get across their own opinions. It is much smarter to urge those who are not doing as much to join in the effort than to criticize people who are giving their lives to this work just because they don’t agree with Ryan on everything.
I’m right there with Ryan when it comes to criticizing young anarchists who think that talking big is enough. He’s right, inflation doesn’t actually do anything for us. If Ryan is reading recent CrimethInc. texts, such as the critique of insurrectionism in the new issue of Rolling Thunder, he knows already that CrimethInc. puts plenty of effort into self-critical evaluation of movement strategy and effectiveness. Not all the conclusions may match his; but he owes it to everyone to acknowledge and address those conclusions at their strongest points, rather than alleging that they do not exist.
Ryan has picked a sitting duck of a target, anyway, in a manner that is hardly fair. He directs his criticism at a text that was composed immediately after a full week of organizing and demonstrating, presumably by people who were extremely exhausted and had not had a moment to rest or reflect. The text was written and published hours after the events of September 24, in an effort to counteract corporate misrepresentations and exaggerations of events—but Ryan essentially lumps it in with them. As far as Ryan is concerned, the hard work that the participants did strategizing about what was effective, organizing for the demonstrations, and describing the results immediately thereafter was all misguided. On the strength of his own former lack of strategy and self-reflection, he feels entitled to paint all of us with that broad brush.
This is the crux of the matter: if Ryan wishes to critique CrimethInc. texts in reference to questions of strategy, he had better choose the texts that are composed as reflections on strategy, not as breaking news reports breathlessly composed by those whose clothes still smell of tear gas. He can certainly find the former—so why has he chosen to focus on the latter?
Ryan says he is not opposed to militant organizing efforts, but that they are ineffective “if they are not solidly rooted in an organizational and movement-wide foundation, supported by large numbers of people who understand their purpose and the steps to take afterwards.” We can agree about that as well—but we might disagree as to what qualifies! And one might argue that keeping the possibility of militant action in the toolbox at all involves some people maintaining a practice of it, even when it is not as popular or pressing, so the skills don’t go entirely out of circulation. It is certainly not the most important aspect of struggle. But most of us who are really invested in it spend the rest of our lives doing hard-core organizing in our local communities. That’s why we’re prepared to risk our bodies and our freedom to struggle against our oppressors in the streets—because we’ve personally seen that anarchist solutions to the problems of daily life work.
I’ll venture to say that I’ve probably witnessed at least as much tragedy and suffering as Ryan has, in my well-over-a-decade of militant anarchist organizing. I’m in my later 30s now. I’m not doing this for the youthful adrenaline rush, but because I believe that street-based struggle is important in certain circumstances. There are young, angry insurrectionists guided by an ego-driven desire for exciting situations, it’s true—but it’s unfair to caricature anyone who disagrees with Ryan’s ideas of what is strategic right now as one such character.
So the final question is—is it ever OK for people to feel that they have succeeded, to enjoy what they are doing, and to express that joy in writing? Can we gush about something that went better than we expected without critics immediately baiting and misrepresenting us? Can we speak aloud to the world about our pleasure in struggle, even bitter, scary struggle, without it being brushed off by supposed comrades as “inflation”?
Because if we can’t, I bet we will have a hard time building a broad-based, joyous movement.
Desiring to be accountable and open to criticism, but firmly expecting the same in return,
b.
I don't agree with your anarchist views, but I have to give you props for seeing through all the bullshit that the media and the protest groups put out. Being from Pittsburgh, I was able to watch the exhaustive coverage of the un-permitted march Thursday. There was only one dumpster rolled down the street, but now its the most viewed dumpster in the world.
The one guy w/ the bullhorn who made sure he jumped in front of all the cameras is a well known 9/11 conspiracy activist who has his own web site to promote. I'm sure his webpage will be promoting his exploits in front of the brutal police. Everyone has a agenda to promote and foster.
One local reporter interviewed a young kid who claimed to be a local anarchist, He was having a difficult time expressing what his beliefs actually were when one of his buddies rescued him by providing all the standard responses. When asked why he had his face masked if the intentions were peaceful protest, he said so his boss didn't see him on TV.
Like you said in your article, a lot of these kids are being attracted to this by the potential to riot when half of them don't even understand the supposed reasons behind it.
The one guy w/ the bullhorn who made sure he jumped in front of all the cameras is a well known 9/11 conspiracy activist who has his own web site to promote. I'm sure his webpage will be promoting his exploits in front of the brutal police. Everyone has a agenda to promote and foster.
One local reporter interviewed a young kid who claimed to be a local anarchist, He was having a difficult time expressing what his beliefs actually were when one of his buddies rescued him by providing all the standard responses. When asked why he had his face masked if the intentions were peaceful protest, he said so his boss didn't see him on TV.
Like you said in your article, a lot of these kids are being attracted to this by the potential to riot when half of them don't even understand the supposed reasons behind it.
I hope nobody is taking this guy's rant seriously. The LAST THING the American anarchist movement needs is more people telling it to NOT DO ACTIONS. We are playing for keeps, for our lives and freedom here... There is no "waiting for the revolution" there is only the revolution we can make here and now, step by step. Of course working in our own communities is important to success, but so is taking to the streets and confronting the police head-on as all of those brave anarchists did in Pittsburgh.
More Diversity of Tactics
Less whiners putting down rebels on the internet
More Diversity of Tactics
Less whiners putting down rebels on the internet
The science of the class struggle is, but for sure it is the police under the hegemony of U.S. Imperialism that are the rioters and terrorists of this and the previous century. The people are carrying through the demonstrations for the good of all, and for the future liberation of their oppressed conditions. That is the way it is, and no amount of sutrafuge can change the path of history and herstory. Mao says, the reactionaries fight and fail, fight and fail, until their defeat, the peoples fight and fail, fight and fail until their victory. It is not other, and it goes on till the U.S. constitution is put back into practice, that if an elected government does not serve the needs of the American people, the people have the duty to alter (impeach) or abolish it (revolution) and replace it with one that does serve the needs of the peolple.
"We were chasing a high that we didn't even understand."
ok, good for you, but when i go to an action, i go there to resist things like capitalism and the pigs; not to chase any "high."
that's gotta be about the goddamn dumbest thing i've ever heard from an "anarchist". go watch X-games if u wanna chase that "high"
ok, good for you, but when i go to an action, i go there to resist things like capitalism and the pigs; not to chase any "high."
that's gotta be about the goddamn dumbest thing i've ever heard from an "anarchist". go watch X-games if u wanna chase that "high"
I've been in these streets too, either as an organizer, with the bloc, or making media, and I agree with your analysis. People are putting you down here in the comments, but that's because your are right and their pride and beliefs are feeling challenged. It seems that if you are not going to tow The militant line, then forget about who you are and what you've experienced, because you do not have the right to even call yourself an "anarchist" anymore. Great essay. A lot of people are going to read it, and it will be talked about. This essay will impact the anarchist movement, at least in the United States. It already impacted me!
No, it's not a good article at all. It purports to depict all anarchist groups, but it seriously gives short shrift to the ones that aren't on Ryan's side of the argument. I'm not even into rioting or whatever, really, but I am into intelligently made arguments. This one is manipulative and dishonest.
Ryan, Ryan, Ryan. I've been in this protest/anarchist thing for 40 years now. I'm 57 years old. I think Ryn is almost dead wrong. And his piece has a level of ageism that anarchists twice his age wouldn't attempt to do. (Note: I only mention my age to counter Ryan's self-righteous old man claim. I don't usually mention my age and attempt to learn from peopel of all ages.)
And of course people go to demonstrations and actions for many reasons. But i can't say there has been one action where i went to get high. I do get a high from crowds of people (some people are scared of crowds), and have gotten off from a successful shutdow and other SUCCESSFUL activity against the forces of evil. It is my belief that we must fight the evilness in the world using direct action, actions whee people actually shut things down themselves and not depend in the rulers/politicians/businessspeople to do so. And yes there will be losses and blood, but maybe your youth, being inmainly in the Bushie era with Clinton thrown in the middle doesn't see the victories form direct action i've seen. But as we go to our 10 year celebration of the successful Seattle WTO shutdown, we don't need someoen to harp on our supposed non-successes without constructive critique.
I do agree with Ryan that we should lie. we shouldn't inflate our numbers, or act like that weren't losses when there were. There's hwoever another form of lying that's more subtle. It's people saying that that things didn't happen they disagree with, or nto acknowledging partial victories. I this is the main problem wiht Harvey's piece. He doesn't understand that a partial victory is very important, and that we must sue them to gather strength to fIght against day.
I confess that i, like Ryan, was not in Pittsburgh. I tried to get their and i supported and promoted it. But in this economy it was harder to travel (especially 3 quarters of a continent) than it has been in the past. I suspect that is the reason less people didn't make it.
And now i would like for people to consider as the next big thing the protest of Winter Olympics in Vancoucer Canada this February. and don't just do it because it is the "next big thing", do it because they're building their stadiums new ski runs, villages, etc. in First Nations' (Native American/Indian) areas that ruin the environment. And go because ithe Olympics are part fo competitive capitalism and imperialist globalization even tho their is a smiling face it on it.
And of course people go to demonstrations and actions for many reasons. But i can't say there has been one action where i went to get high. I do get a high from crowds of people (some people are scared of crowds), and have gotten off from a successful shutdow and other SUCCESSFUL activity against the forces of evil. It is my belief that we must fight the evilness in the world using direct action, actions whee people actually shut things down themselves and not depend in the rulers/politicians/businessspeople to do so. And yes there will be losses and blood, but maybe your youth, being inmainly in the Bushie era with Clinton thrown in the middle doesn't see the victories form direct action i've seen. But as we go to our 10 year celebration of the successful Seattle WTO shutdown, we don't need someoen to harp on our supposed non-successes without constructive critique.
I do agree with Ryan that we should lie. we shouldn't inflate our numbers, or act like that weren't losses when there were. There's hwoever another form of lying that's more subtle. It's people saying that that things didn't happen they disagree with, or nto acknowledging partial victories. I this is the main problem wiht Harvey's piece. He doesn't understand that a partial victory is very important, and that we must sue them to gather strength to fIght against day.
I confess that i, like Ryan, was not in Pittsburgh. I tried to get their and i supported and promoted it. But in this economy it was harder to travel (especially 3 quarters of a continent) than it has been in the past. I suspect that is the reason less people didn't make it.
And now i would like for people to consider as the next big thing the protest of Winter Olympics in Vancoucer Canada this February. and don't just do it because it is the "next big thing", do it because they're building their stadiums new ski runs, villages, etc. in First Nations' (Native American/Indian) areas that ruin the environment. And go because ithe Olympics are part fo competitive capitalism and imperialist globalization even tho their is a smiling face it on it.
i think it's safe to say that we all get pretty high at these demos. but you know what, you get pretty high when you are in love too. but there are reasons behind that love, and there's reasons behind this resistance. they are blowing up mountains, supporting genocide in palestine, and in general enslaving humanity, etc. i know u know all that. we don't do this because we are addicted to rioting, we do it because they've done far worse to those we love. i see a disparity - in your songs you talk about soldiers coming for the captain, etc, but when we do finally have a chance to show real acts of resistance here in the u.s. you don't seem to be too into it. i wouldn't really call it rioting. a couple turned over dumpsters a few rocks thrown at cops, and a handful of windows smashed - to me that's a spirited protest. when/if we riot - there will be no mistaking it. i admit the crimethinc article was a little up in the clouds. but ya, it was written while on an adrenaline high. we can't claim victory. but we sure as hell weren't defeated. i do agree that it's easy to get caught up in militant actions and ideologies, become the hard-core radical perpetuating patriarchal and militaristic norms. but it's also possible to be the zapatista in the jungle - infusing humor, poetry, and spirit into the resistance. having our love inspire and direct our rage. while our rage expresses and strengthens our love. a better world is not only possible. it already exists in the way we support each other, stand in solidarity with each other, love each other and fight together. and as far as building a broad movement - cindy sheehan marched with the black block. tibetan buddhists talked about freeing palestine. hundreds of anarchists marched through the streets on friday respecting the legal and peaceful tone of the antiwar demo. that's building a movement.
and the 'off the streets' comment, i don't know what's up with that. there's no reason at all that we can't be in the streets once every few months, rattle the foundations of global capitalism a little, and then go back to our local communities and do the unsexy work as well.
but to go back to analysis... boston market - whatever. families were eating in there. not thrilled about that. and i heard there were local places hit too - that's not cool. the banks and police substation - right on. i think the more violent or perceived as violent things become, the more need there is to be focused with our targets. if we just want to burn and break things, we could do it after a football game. but if we want to directly challenge those in power, send a clear message to the public, and build a larger movement to smash capitalism - it would help to be a little more selective with our targets.
some people pray with their legs - others with dumpsters and bricks.
and the 'off the streets' comment, i don't know what's up with that. there's no reason at all that we can't be in the streets once every few months, rattle the foundations of global capitalism a little, and then go back to our local communities and do the unsexy work as well.
but to go back to analysis... boston market - whatever. families were eating in there. not thrilled about that. and i heard there were local places hit too - that's not cool. the banks and police substation - right on. i think the more violent or perceived as violent things become, the more need there is to be focused with our targets. if we just want to burn and break things, we could do it after a football game. but if we want to directly challenge those in power, send a clear message to the public, and build a larger movement to smash capitalism - it would help to be a little more selective with our targets.
some people pray with their legs - others with dumpsters and bricks.
I wholeheartedly agree with this piece: let's put the emphasis on creating communities rather than focus on street demos.
So, an anarchist critiqued some other anarchists. Why is this the top story? There are critiques on one side or the other of this "insurrectionary vs. dual-power-building" false dichotomy every week.
I think the first use of sonic weapons against americans is a little more newsworthy then a critique of anarchist tactics written by some guy who wasn't even there. What do these LRAD weapons do to a person? We all know how "safe" tasers are. Are we gonna have our collective eardrums busted next time SFPD wants to clear a street? Fuck that shit!
I think the first use of sonic weapons against americans is a little more newsworthy then a critique of anarchist tactics written by some guy who wasn't even there. What do these LRAD weapons do to a person? We all know how "safe" tasers are. Are we gonna have our collective eardrums busted next time SFPD wants to clear a street? Fuck that shit!
I went to bed after writing some comments, and this morning after thinking about it all night, i wake up to discover this story in the top position. I'm amazed and bewildered and agree with Bofa Deeze that there are important stories from Pittsburgh and none of them is in Harvey's piece. The ifrst is the questions that Bofa raised about the sound cannons.
The second is why people were protesting the G-20 and what specifically they did to modify the capitalist economic and political system to keep it on it's life support systems functioning. And sadly, no protest got in the way of the machines of G-20 states whose whose functioning kills and destroys more peoples in one day than anarchists have ever done. Put things into more perspective folks.
And even the blood that Ryan talks about. Taking even a conservative position, that blood is on the hands of the state and its operatives. It is the not the militancy of the demonstration that causes people o be beaten. I've been to pacifist demonstrations where the cops attacked them, and i've been to a few demonstrations where property was destroyed and there was no blood (police attacks). Of course if you're going to not do anything, not even any effective community building*, there will be no blood, but your non-action is upholding the status quo. We had a statement in the 60's + 70's,"Not to decide is to decide!".
*Effective community organization will be met with state resistance. Why do you think they're going after ACORN? They stopped some predatory loan practices, and the banks and other big loan sharks want their vengeance. Hopefully in getting their house in order, they will not stop the important advocacy work they do.
The second is why people were protesting the G-20 and what specifically they did to modify the capitalist economic and political system to keep it on it's life support systems functioning. And sadly, no protest got in the way of the machines of G-20 states whose whose functioning kills and destroys more peoples in one day than anarchists have ever done. Put things into more perspective folks.
And even the blood that Ryan talks about. Taking even a conservative position, that blood is on the hands of the state and its operatives. It is the not the militancy of the demonstration that causes people o be beaten. I've been to pacifist demonstrations where the cops attacked them, and i've been to a few demonstrations where property was destroyed and there was no blood (police attacks). Of course if you're going to not do anything, not even any effective community building*, there will be no blood, but your non-action is upholding the status quo. We had a statement in the 60's + 70's,"Not to decide is to decide!".
*Effective community organization will be met with state resistance. Why do you think they're going after ACORN? They stopped some predatory loan practices, and the banks and other big loan sharks want their vengeance. Hopefully in getting their house in order, they will not stop the important advocacy work they do.
Just for the record, after getting housing set up through the Thomas Merton Ctr., a guaranteed plane ticket from my friend Faith, a tent from Dave of the "Compared to What" jazz band, and money from local rads, I DID NOT go to Steel Town because I did not choose to go there to riot. My friend Brian Tokar (Director of the Social Ecology Institute in Vermont) had sent me an email saying that he was holding up in NYC, because due to factors like no permits, he was not certain if he could do what he had intended to do at the 3 Rivers Climate Convergence, since everything was quickly devolving in Pittsburgh. I am not at all addicted to rioting and general mayhem. Nota Bene: Since I've got your attention, I am celebrating my 60th birthday Monday 9/28...upstairs at Kip's in Berkeley at Durant and Telegraph Ave. in the university district, 8-10PM. Do drop in, y'all.
Thank you for writing this, it brought up some good points and really made me think.
I am 20 now, and I haven't been to any major protests, just small ones and peace rallies. I've got friends who were in Seattle and St. Paul and such. I've heard the stories. I've gotten the second hand rush of being in a convergence space two days after a major protest with people still around, telling stories and working out plans for legal help, etc.
I live in a collective house, and I've heard my roommates many a time talk about how they just wish they could match the riot cops with full riot gear and weapons and such. I've joined in on those talks. You're right, there is something romantic about physically fighting for a cause.
I've thought about it at length. I'm not a violent person. But sitting at home this last week and listening to the G-Infinity audio feed of the G20 just made me want to be out on those streets marching in solidarity with my fellow anarchists. If it wasn't for school, I would have been there.
I feel amazing whenever I do any action whether it be Food Not Bombs, going to an IWW meeting, setting up political forums on campus, writing ABC letters and sending books and pamphlets to prisoners, or working on the infoshop in the back of our house. Hell, I get satisfaction every time I flush our gray water toilet, take out the recycling, or work on the garden. Those are all actions, all direct actions. They might be small, but they do make a difference. You don't have to take to the streets to be active (which is one thing I think Ryan was getting at that some people apparently missed).
So why, if I know that I'm helping build a stronger community where I live and I'm educating myself and others and helping all I can do I so desperately want to partake in a riot? For me, there's a rush in danger, but I don't think that's what is really making me want to attend these larger and more dangerous protests.
When I went up to St. Paul to bring a number of my collective members home when our ambulance (lovingly named the Struggle Bus) was impounded I was absolutely blown away by the feeling I got being around so damn many other people like me from so many different places and walks of life. It was comforting to be shown first hand that my friends and I weren't alone in this fight for freedom, equality, and stronger, functioning communities.
I'm torn on the topic of these large scale protests. It takes a lot of nerve to stand up to police and national guard knowing they're armed and you're not. I commend every person who showed up because they're tired of their voice not being heard and they want to feel that connection with other activists. I stand in solidarity with all of those that were arrested for standing their ground. There are days I wish I could break the windows of every corporate establishment I come across. But what is it doing?
Lately I've been talking to people that I know have different or opposing political and social view points as much as I can. I've found that sitting around in my living room on a Friday night with twenty other anarchists agree on most things and arguing about semantics is nothing more than masturbation. Yeah, it's healthy and it's fun and it makes me feel good, but it's not changing anything. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk amongst ourselves, but doing only that keeps us out of touch with the millions of other people that we'd like to join our cause. Sadly, anarchist is a dirty word, and the only way we're going to change that is to show people that we're just like them. To show them that we really, truly want a prosperous society in which everyone is equal, not just chaos in the streets.
But that's what people see. Chaos in the streets. I want to go to these large scale demonstrations and protests, but I really hate the image they give anarchists. People see that one damn dumpster rolling down the hill towards an LRAD and say "well obviously the police had a reason to attack them" or they hear about all the broken windows that were broken by a small handful of people and tense up about anarchists being violent. (I don't personally think destroying property is violence...but that's another topic.)
What do we accomplish with this? Someone feels great about destroying property until they get arrested, the business that had its windows broken calls their insurance and gets a new window, and we get a bad reputation. Breaking windows and throwing mailboxes isn't going to get us anywhere, and it's going to provoke more violence from the police. Do the insurrectionists think anything about the other protesters they're harming by pushing officials in ivory towers give the word to gas the entire crowd? There may not be coverage in the big name news media in our favor, but goddamnit, why do we give them ammo like that?!
I hate the image of some punk or hipster lifestylist that quits their job and doesn't shower and squats and train hops while doing drugs and playing a guitar. There's nothing wrong with punk rock music or not showering or quitting you job because you're treated unfairly and not able to organize. I have nothing against hitchhiking or squatting or dumpstering or trainhopping. But if that's all someone does, drop off the grid because they're sick of it and slide by as long as they can, they aren't actually doing anything. A number of young anarchists I've met know little or nothing about political theory and don't care to learn. They just don't want to have to work for anything. They don't care what the word "anarchist" invokes in the minds of the rest of the world and want to be marginalized to they can continue to rebel. It makes me sad because THAT WON'T GET US ANYWHERE.
We need people who know how to organize. People who are willing to talk to "outsiders" show them what we're really about. We need people to be committed and spend time actually working on things and strengthening ties between collectives so we have stronger anarchist communities. That's what we've always tried to do at my collective, I can't speak for any others. If we got together just to be together more often and collaborated more we'd get a better sense of community and get more done. I agree, anarchists need to have purpose to the actions they take, especially extremely public and contreversial actions that affect not only themselves, but the cause as a whole.
So yeah, protests are great. They have their time and place. And I'm never going to tell anyone not to stand up against something their against like the WTO, G8, G20, RNC, DNC, wars, etc. But honestly, it doesn't end there. Stronger networks and activists that are being rational and not just emotional are what we need. Committed people who don't worry too much about whether the other anarchists they're working with are primitivists or insurrectionists or syndicalists (I hate how we divide ourselves so...).
I think you misspoke, Ryan, when you said "take anarchism off the streets" because it's still on the streets if it's in our communities. It's not something we should hide. Also, certain amount of romanticism and idealism does a cause good. It keeps people from getting too burnt out and gives everyone something to daydream about.
You do have a point though with all of the questions about what we're actually accomplishing at protests. Personally, it makes more sense (at the moment) to be peaceful. If they make the first move, that's one thing. And if some time comes where it's necessary, fine. But right now I think being peaceful and taking time to get to know our fellow activists and share opinions and strategies sounds like a much better plan to me...
I plan on being at the G8 in Canada next summer, and I really cannot afford to get arrested, so I really hope those few people who do outrageous and pointless things to make the riot police descend upon our black blocs think twice. If anyone else is going, look for me there, I'll be the one with a black bandana covering my face :-P
-Biz
I am 20 now, and I haven't been to any major protests, just small ones and peace rallies. I've got friends who were in Seattle and St. Paul and such. I've heard the stories. I've gotten the second hand rush of being in a convergence space two days after a major protest with people still around, telling stories and working out plans for legal help, etc.
I live in a collective house, and I've heard my roommates many a time talk about how they just wish they could match the riot cops with full riot gear and weapons and such. I've joined in on those talks. You're right, there is something romantic about physically fighting for a cause.
I've thought about it at length. I'm not a violent person. But sitting at home this last week and listening to the G-Infinity audio feed of the G20 just made me want to be out on those streets marching in solidarity with my fellow anarchists. If it wasn't for school, I would have been there.
I feel amazing whenever I do any action whether it be Food Not Bombs, going to an IWW meeting, setting up political forums on campus, writing ABC letters and sending books and pamphlets to prisoners, or working on the infoshop in the back of our house. Hell, I get satisfaction every time I flush our gray water toilet, take out the recycling, or work on the garden. Those are all actions, all direct actions. They might be small, but they do make a difference. You don't have to take to the streets to be active (which is one thing I think Ryan was getting at that some people apparently missed).
So why, if I know that I'm helping build a stronger community where I live and I'm educating myself and others and helping all I can do I so desperately want to partake in a riot? For me, there's a rush in danger, but I don't think that's what is really making me want to attend these larger and more dangerous protests.
When I went up to St. Paul to bring a number of my collective members home when our ambulance (lovingly named the Struggle Bus) was impounded I was absolutely blown away by the feeling I got being around so damn many other people like me from so many different places and walks of life. It was comforting to be shown first hand that my friends and I weren't alone in this fight for freedom, equality, and stronger, functioning communities.
I'm torn on the topic of these large scale protests. It takes a lot of nerve to stand up to police and national guard knowing they're armed and you're not. I commend every person who showed up because they're tired of their voice not being heard and they want to feel that connection with other activists. I stand in solidarity with all of those that were arrested for standing their ground. There are days I wish I could break the windows of every corporate establishment I come across. But what is it doing?
Lately I've been talking to people that I know have different or opposing political and social view points as much as I can. I've found that sitting around in my living room on a Friday night with twenty other anarchists agree on most things and arguing about semantics is nothing more than masturbation. Yeah, it's healthy and it's fun and it makes me feel good, but it's not changing anything. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk amongst ourselves, but doing only that keeps us out of touch with the millions of other people that we'd like to join our cause. Sadly, anarchist is a dirty word, and the only way we're going to change that is to show people that we're just like them. To show them that we really, truly want a prosperous society in which everyone is equal, not just chaos in the streets.
But that's what people see. Chaos in the streets. I want to go to these large scale demonstrations and protests, but I really hate the image they give anarchists. People see that one damn dumpster rolling down the hill towards an LRAD and say "well obviously the police had a reason to attack them" or they hear about all the broken windows that were broken by a small handful of people and tense up about anarchists being violent. (I don't personally think destroying property is violence...but that's another topic.)
What do we accomplish with this? Someone feels great about destroying property until they get arrested, the business that had its windows broken calls their insurance and gets a new window, and we get a bad reputation. Breaking windows and throwing mailboxes isn't going to get us anywhere, and it's going to provoke more violence from the police. Do the insurrectionists think anything about the other protesters they're harming by pushing officials in ivory towers give the word to gas the entire crowd? There may not be coverage in the big name news media in our favor, but goddamnit, why do we give them ammo like that?!
I hate the image of some punk or hipster lifestylist that quits their job and doesn't shower and squats and train hops while doing drugs and playing a guitar. There's nothing wrong with punk rock music or not showering or quitting you job because you're treated unfairly and not able to organize. I have nothing against hitchhiking or squatting or dumpstering or trainhopping. But if that's all someone does, drop off the grid because they're sick of it and slide by as long as they can, they aren't actually doing anything. A number of young anarchists I've met know little or nothing about political theory and don't care to learn. They just don't want to have to work for anything. They don't care what the word "anarchist" invokes in the minds of the rest of the world and want to be marginalized to they can continue to rebel. It makes me sad because THAT WON'T GET US ANYWHERE.
We need people who know how to organize. People who are willing to talk to "outsiders" show them what we're really about. We need people to be committed and spend time actually working on things and strengthening ties between collectives so we have stronger anarchist communities. That's what we've always tried to do at my collective, I can't speak for any others. If we got together just to be together more often and collaborated more we'd get a better sense of community and get more done. I agree, anarchists need to have purpose to the actions they take, especially extremely public and contreversial actions that affect not only themselves, but the cause as a whole.
So yeah, protests are great. They have their time and place. And I'm never going to tell anyone not to stand up against something their against like the WTO, G8, G20, RNC, DNC, wars, etc. But honestly, it doesn't end there. Stronger networks and activists that are being rational and not just emotional are what we need. Committed people who don't worry too much about whether the other anarchists they're working with are primitivists or insurrectionists or syndicalists (I hate how we divide ourselves so...).
I think you misspoke, Ryan, when you said "take anarchism off the streets" because it's still on the streets if it's in our communities. It's not something we should hide. Also, certain amount of romanticism and idealism does a cause good. It keeps people from getting too burnt out and gives everyone something to daydream about.
You do have a point though with all of the questions about what we're actually accomplishing at protests. Personally, it makes more sense (at the moment) to be peaceful. If they make the first move, that's one thing. And if some time comes where it's necessary, fine. But right now I think being peaceful and taking time to get to know our fellow activists and share opinions and strategies sounds like a much better plan to me...
I plan on being at the G8 in Canada next summer, and I really cannot afford to get arrested, so I really hope those few people who do outrageous and pointless things to make the riot police descend upon our black blocs think twice. If anyone else is going, look for me there, I'll be the one with a black bandana covering my face :-P
-Biz
i find nothing more excilerating the a good riot. especially when you actuallly chase the cops away.how empowering.
addicted to rioted? i hope so...silly boy.
addicted to rioted? i hope so...silly boy.
is that the issues you went there to protest end up getting ignored.
The biggest problem with NOT rioting
is that the entire protest gets ignored.
I don't have an answer to this :(
The biggest problem with NOT rioting
is that the entire protest gets ignored.
I don't have an answer to this :(
For more information:
http://Fluxview.com
Thanks to Indybay for putting this up and harvey for writing it.
Since 2001, and even more so after 2003 our mass direct action mobilizations-- though gutsy well intentioned--have had less participants, less public support, and been less effective. Within the dominant anarchist scene, a set of organizing principles that will continue this have become set in stone: diversity of tactics (instead of participants), (in)security culture, and difficulty communicating to other parts of the movement, communities and the public. Pittsburgh Organizing Groups, who set the Anarchist sector organizing framework up, is about the the most together long term community based anarchist group in the country, but still...
This is not Europe and while we talk to ourselves in code language the right organizes the mostly white working and middle class folks that those of us who are from from the same background should be winning over. Meanwhile liberals and progressives are immobilized by eight years of Bush followed by cooptation under Obama and the death of social democracy welfare state.
There is an opening and a hunger for a new effective anti-authoritarian politics and mass movement, but it's unclear where it will come from.
Since 2001, and even more so after 2003 our mass direct action mobilizations-- though gutsy well intentioned--have had less participants, less public support, and been less effective. Within the dominant anarchist scene, a set of organizing principles that will continue this have become set in stone: diversity of tactics (instead of participants), (in)security culture, and difficulty communicating to other parts of the movement, communities and the public. Pittsburgh Organizing Groups, who set the Anarchist sector organizing framework up, is about the the most together long term community based anarchist group in the country, but still...
This is not Europe and while we talk to ourselves in code language the right organizes the mostly white working and middle class folks that those of us who are from from the same background should be winning over. Meanwhile liberals and progressives are immobilized by eight years of Bush followed by cooptation under Obama and the death of social democracy welfare state.
There is an opening and a hunger for a new effective anti-authoritarian politics and mass movement, but it's unclear where it will come from.
Ryan wasnt even in pittsburgh and from someone who was let me tell you this is pretty off point. Why dont you have ANY coverage AT ALL of the resistance and protests to global capitalism that happened in pittsburgh by people who DO organize when they are not protesting?
this is a ridiculous article and indybay is looking pretty opinionated by only publishing this when indy medias in other countries even are actually covering what happened and not just a piece written blindly by someone who wasnt there...cmon now editors, please put some actual converage up.....
this is a ridiculous article and indybay is looking pretty opinionated by only publishing this when indy medias in other countries even are actually covering what happened and not just a piece written blindly by someone who wasnt there...cmon now editors, please put some actual converage up.....
this is war
Ryan responded to a similar thread on
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=2009092714272755
Authored by: ryanharvey on Monday, September 28 2009 @ 06:26 PM CDT
Hey everyone, thanks for all the words.
While I appreciate a lot of this, both agreements and criticisms, I don't want it to turn into an internet-battle. There's plenty of things to agree and disagree on, and we don't need to come to consensus on it. While I have regrets about ways I worded things in my article, about assumptions I now see that I made (for instance, POG does wonderful work, and I have done many things with them in the past. Mad respect to yall, you are one of the anarchist groups I know of that's really stuck it out, applied yourselves both inside and outside of POG to real community work... and you don't disregard non-anarchist community work as "liberal" or pointless, and you have had your shit together enough to organize for larger demonstrations without shirking off your local responsibilities. That's rare and certainly worth a lot!).
And I am mad respectful to yall for putting so much work into PTSD prep, that's really good to know. I know some of yall who were involved on the medical end of things and I want to give you my sincere respect for that work, it is often thankless. I in no way meant to criticize you in my writings, I am very sorry if I came off that way. When I brought that up, I was reflecting a lot more on time's passed and taking a broader view. I ddi not mention Pittsburgh at all in that section. But also, it's true that long-term networks for those mentally effected by this work and our experiences, are very few and far between (the Catalyst Project provides one such space and lots of information.). I don't want to downplay this as something we need that we don't have, as if it's easy. It's a HUGE issue, far bigger than a few sentence can justify. So thanking for laying some seeds towards that goal. In my work with anti-war veterans and soldiers, we have a whole organization of counselors established, on a volunteer basis. That's a model that we could use in other places, sympathetic folks with skills in that area.
I was indeed attempting to promote dialogue, I apologize if I came off as shitting on people. I respect the people who put work into this, I don't want to make yall feel like you wasted your time, you didn't. The G20 should not go unopposed, I think the POG folks and the Merton center did a terrific job hosting these beloved world leaders.
A very painful feeling enters me sometimes when I get excited about a mass demonstration, which I was about Pittsburgh, excited that is. It's the feeling that I'm watching aspects of my life repeat themselves, and keeping my mouth shut with my warnings from lessons I've learned. I figured if others like some of my friends in Crimethinc are chiming in, I wanted to as well. And we've talked a bit, and I've explained that my using quotes from them was not meant in any way to call them out... I did not write this as a response to them, I simply used 2 quotes to help me make a point. I want to be clear about that, and regret not being more clear in my original article. I also should have been clear that this was not "about Pittsburgh", it was in light of it. I did not write to critique the G20 protests as an individual event, as I was not there and could not begin to have the understandings and experiences that would lead to it. It was more a movement-wide critique, drawing on recent events in Pittsburgh but also, if you read it, less-recent events in Miami, Denver, St. Paul, Quebec City, and others, all of which I was a first-hand participant in.
To make another thing very clear, I do not allude to any "street protest vs. community organizing" argument in my writing. I do not see any merit in such an argument. What I have seen is that this has been projected onto to my article for some reason. Read it more carefully. The ENTIRE second half of my writing negate's this argument. But I do argue a lot about street-protest and community organizing. Some want to have their cake and eat it too, that's fine. But we gotta have a cake to eat. That's where I chime in. I have disagreements about the size of our cake, or whatever or not the things we have in indeed a cake.
When I say we should take anarchism "out of the streets and put it back in the communities", I don't mean that in a "community organizing VS street action" way. I mean it in the way that Subcomandante Marcos and his early comrades when "back to the communities" after first attempting to start a Marxist insurrection in Chiapas, realizing the many faults in the assumptions they had made about the communities in Southern Mexico and their assumed tendency towards Marxist revolt. So for ten years they built, they listened, they "walked by asking", and they built a new, organic, non-dogmatic and very radical movement of people that was able to effectively defend it's culture and livelihoods against a major state-power. That's the kind of reflection/community focus that I'm alluding to. The Zapatistas had to "take it out of the streets" for a bit while they built something real, from which they would eventually fight to defend.
What I do argue is that there's a serious lack of community organizing in our society, and we are a group of people who can do that work if we apply ourselves. I wish more anarchist propaganda/conversation/art focused on this. That's part of why I said some of things I said. Our rhetoric is very militant, which is often also very macho. The Europeans call non-violent actions "fluffy", for instance. I wish we glorified the more grueling, less romantic, more time-consuming and madness producing work the way we glorify the actions.
To perhaps once again sound like a jackass, I think some of us may have some serious disagreements about what community organizing is and looks like. I think a lot of really important, very radical work is written off as "liberal". A response to my article, in an email, said "What troubles me is what separates us from being liberals?" My answer is don't worry what label you are called! Do the right things in the right situations! Follow your values, your values that say no one should rule another person, your anarchist values that say "justice for everyone". Follow them, not your political dogma, not your Ism, not your rhetoric. Follow the human values and let them lead you to your work.
The "liberal" argument is the anarchist version of the Right calling Obama a socialist. It's usually holier-than-thou bullshit. I have heard living wage campaigns among poor workers, of which I have been an organizer with a winning campaign here in Baltimore, called "reformist" and "liberal". Was the 8-hour day liberal? Then why the glorification of the Haymarket martyrs? Then fuck the Haymarket martyrs, right? If fighting for local economic and political reforms is a liberal act (because we need to smashing the state right?) then write off the wobblies, the entire civil rights movement, the suffragettes, APPO, most of the occupied-factories in Argentina, all the militant struggles against Apartheid, the movement against slavery, the uprising that resulted in the British getting punted out of 1/2 the world, the Palestinian struggles, and most others in the world. Non of them were "truly anarchist", who cares? They were right on. They are the events that gave life to a world-history of struggle.
A friend also said earlier that I sounded "like a dogmatic socialist", which is supposed to be another great insult to an anarchist. I think we have a lot to learn from dogmatic socialists about self-critique, and I think they have a lot learn from us about authoritarian ideas. I think we have a lot to learn from liberal organizers, who seems to be able to run successful campaigns and achieve real tangible victories. And they have a lot to learn from us about the real underlying issues in our society, focusing on causes, not symptoms.
I did not ever in my article say anything alluding to anarchists not being community organizers. I am one! A lot of my closest friends are too! I know this, I would never make such a naive assumption. So I'm sorry that I seemed to have alluded to that, I apologize, that was certainly not my intention.
To those of you who are calling me out in a hateful way, don't assume things on me either. I know plenty of you, folks I've been in some serious situations with. I know lots of you who spent a lot of time and energy organizing for these demonstrations. That said, I also understand how much energy and time goes into these things, I have dedicated rather large chunks of my young life to these same things. So when a person who's been there and has had these same similar experiences comes out and says something in an open-way, perhaps in too harsh a way, I would hope we take it to be a real thing, from a real place. Instead some of you have chosen to focus on my not being in Pittsburgh, which sounds a bit like a soldier saying "you have no right to criticize the war unless you were there". It's a valid feeling, not a valid point.
I struggle with these thoughts, and I don't like to criticize my friends in public. But these are such strong feelings, such lingering thoughts, that I felt I needed to put them out. I would have been in Pittsburgh 4 years ago, but I have felt lost lately... as have so many others. Is that not a valid story? Is it not valid when someone who has been a pretty far-reaching organizer for so long feels disconnected and disenchanted, not with politics or with radical views, but with the organizing happening in the movement/scene he came from? I think that's valid, and my sharing these views and ideas with so many friends in the last few years who had very similar experiences has pushed me to finally make a comment. But now my name will be attached to it as the one who finally said something. Just know that these are feelings of many, not one. Several folks have emailed or called me to express thanks for my writing of this, not to say they agreed 100 percent (which no no should, typically) but to say thanks for finally saying things that they had been too scared or confused to say. So, in this, I don't aim to lay down some sort of division. I wrote this to put questions out there. And from what I can see, at least folks are thinking about the criticisms.
As I see large numbers turn-out, the biggest anti-capitalist demo since Seattle according to one, I don't see a lot of folks I came of age with still out there. We have a HIGH tunrover rate, and there's reasons for it. That's a big topic too, and in order to not make assumptions as folks have pointed out that I have done, I'll leave that question open. A huge number on new young folks are turning out, where will they be in 3 years? Burned out like 75 percent of my old friends? I hope not, but I fear so. Because the nature of this movement hasn't really changed that mush.
Overall what my article yearns to discuss, is what this all means. What does it mean to have a large anarchist/black bloc mobilization? What's it mean to have "shown resistance" in the streets? I'm not saying it doesn't have meaning, please don't interpret it, I'm asking a question to which there may be many answers. These are very relevant answers. I don't have them, I am not writing to provide them. I'm writing to remind us to ask them.
Thanks yall, thanks for the dialogue. I'd love to talk to folks in person next time I see yall.
peace,
Ryan
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=2009092714272755
Authored by: ryanharvey on Monday, September 28 2009 @ 06:26 PM CDT
Hey everyone, thanks for all the words.
While I appreciate a lot of this, both agreements and criticisms, I don't want it to turn into an internet-battle. There's plenty of things to agree and disagree on, and we don't need to come to consensus on it. While I have regrets about ways I worded things in my article, about assumptions I now see that I made (for instance, POG does wonderful work, and I have done many things with them in the past. Mad respect to yall, you are one of the anarchist groups I know of that's really stuck it out, applied yourselves both inside and outside of POG to real community work... and you don't disregard non-anarchist community work as "liberal" or pointless, and you have had your shit together enough to organize for larger demonstrations without shirking off your local responsibilities. That's rare and certainly worth a lot!).
And I am mad respectful to yall for putting so much work into PTSD prep, that's really good to know. I know some of yall who were involved on the medical end of things and I want to give you my sincere respect for that work, it is often thankless. I in no way meant to criticize you in my writings, I am very sorry if I came off that way. When I brought that up, I was reflecting a lot more on time's passed and taking a broader view. I ddi not mention Pittsburgh at all in that section. But also, it's true that long-term networks for those mentally effected by this work and our experiences, are very few and far between (the Catalyst Project provides one such space and lots of information.). I don't want to downplay this as something we need that we don't have, as if it's easy. It's a HUGE issue, far bigger than a few sentence can justify. So thanking for laying some seeds towards that goal. In my work with anti-war veterans and soldiers, we have a whole organization of counselors established, on a volunteer basis. That's a model that we could use in other places, sympathetic folks with skills in that area.
I was indeed attempting to promote dialogue, I apologize if I came off as shitting on people. I respect the people who put work into this, I don't want to make yall feel like you wasted your time, you didn't. The G20 should not go unopposed, I think the POG folks and the Merton center did a terrific job hosting these beloved world leaders.
A very painful feeling enters me sometimes when I get excited about a mass demonstration, which I was about Pittsburgh, excited that is. It's the feeling that I'm watching aspects of my life repeat themselves, and keeping my mouth shut with my warnings from lessons I've learned. I figured if others like some of my friends in Crimethinc are chiming in, I wanted to as well. And we've talked a bit, and I've explained that my using quotes from them was not meant in any way to call them out... I did not write this as a response to them, I simply used 2 quotes to help me make a point. I want to be clear about that, and regret not being more clear in my original article. I also should have been clear that this was not "about Pittsburgh", it was in light of it. I did not write to critique the G20 protests as an individual event, as I was not there and could not begin to have the understandings and experiences that would lead to it. It was more a movement-wide critique, drawing on recent events in Pittsburgh but also, if you read it, less-recent events in Miami, Denver, St. Paul, Quebec City, and others, all of which I was a first-hand participant in.
To make another thing very clear, I do not allude to any "street protest vs. community organizing" argument in my writing. I do not see any merit in such an argument. What I have seen is that this has been projected onto to my article for some reason. Read it more carefully. The ENTIRE second half of my writing negate's this argument. But I do argue a lot about street-protest and community organizing. Some want to have their cake and eat it too, that's fine. But we gotta have a cake to eat. That's where I chime in. I have disagreements about the size of our cake, or whatever or not the things we have in indeed a cake.
When I say we should take anarchism "out of the streets and put it back in the communities", I don't mean that in a "community organizing VS street action" way. I mean it in the way that Subcomandante Marcos and his early comrades when "back to the communities" after first attempting to start a Marxist insurrection in Chiapas, realizing the many faults in the assumptions they had made about the communities in Southern Mexico and their assumed tendency towards Marxist revolt. So for ten years they built, they listened, they "walked by asking", and they built a new, organic, non-dogmatic and very radical movement of people that was able to effectively defend it's culture and livelihoods against a major state-power. That's the kind of reflection/community focus that I'm alluding to. The Zapatistas had to "take it out of the streets" for a bit while they built something real, from which they would eventually fight to defend.
What I do argue is that there's a serious lack of community organizing in our society, and we are a group of people who can do that work if we apply ourselves. I wish more anarchist propaganda/conversation/art focused on this. That's part of why I said some of things I said. Our rhetoric is very militant, which is often also very macho. The Europeans call non-violent actions "fluffy", for instance. I wish we glorified the more grueling, less romantic, more time-consuming and madness producing work the way we glorify the actions.
To perhaps once again sound like a jackass, I think some of us may have some serious disagreements about what community organizing is and looks like. I think a lot of really important, very radical work is written off as "liberal". A response to my article, in an email, said "What troubles me is what separates us from being liberals?" My answer is don't worry what label you are called! Do the right things in the right situations! Follow your values, your values that say no one should rule another person, your anarchist values that say "justice for everyone". Follow them, not your political dogma, not your Ism, not your rhetoric. Follow the human values and let them lead you to your work.
The "liberal" argument is the anarchist version of the Right calling Obama a socialist. It's usually holier-than-thou bullshit. I have heard living wage campaigns among poor workers, of which I have been an organizer with a winning campaign here in Baltimore, called "reformist" and "liberal". Was the 8-hour day liberal? Then why the glorification of the Haymarket martyrs? Then fuck the Haymarket martyrs, right? If fighting for local economic and political reforms is a liberal act (because we need to smashing the state right?) then write off the wobblies, the entire civil rights movement, the suffragettes, APPO, most of the occupied-factories in Argentina, all the militant struggles against Apartheid, the movement against slavery, the uprising that resulted in the British getting punted out of 1/2 the world, the Palestinian struggles, and most others in the world. Non of them were "truly anarchist", who cares? They were right on. They are the events that gave life to a world-history of struggle.
A friend also said earlier that I sounded "like a dogmatic socialist", which is supposed to be another great insult to an anarchist. I think we have a lot to learn from dogmatic socialists about self-critique, and I think they have a lot learn from us about authoritarian ideas. I think we have a lot to learn from liberal organizers, who seems to be able to run successful campaigns and achieve real tangible victories. And they have a lot to learn from us about the real underlying issues in our society, focusing on causes, not symptoms.
I did not ever in my article say anything alluding to anarchists not being community organizers. I am one! A lot of my closest friends are too! I know this, I would never make such a naive assumption. So I'm sorry that I seemed to have alluded to that, I apologize, that was certainly not my intention.
To those of you who are calling me out in a hateful way, don't assume things on me either. I know plenty of you, folks I've been in some serious situations with. I know lots of you who spent a lot of time and energy organizing for these demonstrations. That said, I also understand how much energy and time goes into these things, I have dedicated rather large chunks of my young life to these same things. So when a person who's been there and has had these same similar experiences comes out and says something in an open-way, perhaps in too harsh a way, I would hope we take it to be a real thing, from a real place. Instead some of you have chosen to focus on my not being in Pittsburgh, which sounds a bit like a soldier saying "you have no right to criticize the war unless you were there". It's a valid feeling, not a valid point.
I struggle with these thoughts, and I don't like to criticize my friends in public. But these are such strong feelings, such lingering thoughts, that I felt I needed to put them out. I would have been in Pittsburgh 4 years ago, but I have felt lost lately... as have so many others. Is that not a valid story? Is it not valid when someone who has been a pretty far-reaching organizer for so long feels disconnected and disenchanted, not with politics or with radical views, but with the organizing happening in the movement/scene he came from? I think that's valid, and my sharing these views and ideas with so many friends in the last few years who had very similar experiences has pushed me to finally make a comment. But now my name will be attached to it as the one who finally said something. Just know that these are feelings of many, not one. Several folks have emailed or called me to express thanks for my writing of this, not to say they agreed 100 percent (which no no should, typically) but to say thanks for finally saying things that they had been too scared or confused to say. So, in this, I don't aim to lay down some sort of division. I wrote this to put questions out there. And from what I can see, at least folks are thinking about the criticisms.
As I see large numbers turn-out, the biggest anti-capitalist demo since Seattle according to one, I don't see a lot of folks I came of age with still out there. We have a HIGH tunrover rate, and there's reasons for it. That's a big topic too, and in order to not make assumptions as folks have pointed out that I have done, I'll leave that question open. A huge number on new young folks are turning out, where will they be in 3 years? Burned out like 75 percent of my old friends? I hope not, but I fear so. Because the nature of this movement hasn't really changed that mush.
Overall what my article yearns to discuss, is what this all means. What does it mean to have a large anarchist/black bloc mobilization? What's it mean to have "shown resistance" in the streets? I'm not saying it doesn't have meaning, please don't interpret it, I'm asking a question to which there may be many answers. These are very relevant answers. I don't have them, I am not writing to provide them. I'm writing to remind us to ask them.
Thanks yall, thanks for the dialogue. I'd love to talk to folks in person next time I see yall.
peace,
Ryan
Hello. Thanks for all the chatter, I was hoping this essay would find supporters and dissent. I was gonna post this response I wrote but someone already did below, thanks!
Before that, I wanted to clear a few things up. I AM an organizer, I am offended by the suggestion that I am not. I do agree that there are other stories indybay should be posting high, I welcome those.
I wrote to add critical dialogue into the atmosphere around Pittsburgh. My friend called it "dynamic tension", there's nothing wrong with critical exploration. I'm not a regular on the critique circuit, in fact, this is the first time I've really published a thing like this. But I feel that what I have said it stuff that needs to be said, and many folks have emailed, called, or openly posted this sentiment in response. They don't feel it needs to be said because they completely agree with it, they do so because there are relevant points on very pressing issues, issues that tend to drive many out of radical organizing. Many of my friends disagree with my analysis, which is imperfect by design. I disagree with some of it too, in retrospect, after reading other folks' opinions. I don't see any hypocrasy there, I try to have fluid politics and ideas. I put out my raw, 100 percent real feelings in hopes that it would hit a nerve with folks on multiple sides of the dicsussion. So I welcome that.
And as I say below, the argument that I was not in Pittsburgh, and hence have no right commenting on this movement in general, are not founded. I have been involved in this movement and it's associated communities for over 10 years. I have been part of or helped organize many of the now mythological demonstrations that are the subjects of popular movement-documentaries and books.
To those of you who know me, I welcome your total rejection of my principles and conclusions, there's a lot of ideas out there, and there ain't nothing wrong with disagreeing on this shit. I certainly disagree with tons of literature and opinions/tendencies that float around out there. But I would really appreciate respect among my peers, especially those of you with whom I have so many shared experiences.
Before that, I wanted to clear a few things up. I AM an organizer, I am offended by the suggestion that I am not. I do agree that there are other stories indybay should be posting high, I welcome those.
I wrote to add critical dialogue into the atmosphere around Pittsburgh. My friend called it "dynamic tension", there's nothing wrong with critical exploration. I'm not a regular on the critique circuit, in fact, this is the first time I've really published a thing like this. But I feel that what I have said it stuff that needs to be said, and many folks have emailed, called, or openly posted this sentiment in response. They don't feel it needs to be said because they completely agree with it, they do so because there are relevant points on very pressing issues, issues that tend to drive many out of radical organizing. Many of my friends disagree with my analysis, which is imperfect by design. I disagree with some of it too, in retrospect, after reading other folks' opinions. I don't see any hypocrasy there, I try to have fluid politics and ideas. I put out my raw, 100 percent real feelings in hopes that it would hit a nerve with folks on multiple sides of the dicsussion. So I welcome that.
And as I say below, the argument that I was not in Pittsburgh, and hence have no right commenting on this movement in general, are not founded. I have been involved in this movement and it's associated communities for over 10 years. I have been part of or helped organize many of the now mythological demonstrations that are the subjects of popular movement-documentaries and books.
To those of you who know me, I welcome your total rejection of my principles and conclusions, there's a lot of ideas out there, and there ain't nothing wrong with disagreeing on this shit. I certainly disagree with tons of literature and opinions/tendencies that float around out there. But I would really appreciate respect among my peers, especially those of you with whom I have so many shared experiences.
It was like a really loud car alarm... I'm already deaf in one ear so it was a little scary for me but... it really wasnt that loud to be honest. Just annoying.
I just think that both in the streets and in the communities is important. As a 50 yr old, long time anarchist, I've been raising kids for 15 years and you just get sucked into this society and become forced to make decisions that sell out your values, temporarily, you hope. There has to be a place for the pure inspiration and reaction to the atrocity that is our civilization. This society makes me want to throw up on a daily basis. Right now the anarchist movement is small but it should be seen as an integral part of a larger movement that will work in both "liberal" ways and in radical confrontational ways. You won't believe what its like to go to the schools and workplace and have to submit yourself to the judgements of main stream society, as to how you look and what you want to talk about. You have to guard your tongue and look for support in new ways. Its really really hard. This is why I think we need to work in both arenas.
The street action and theatrics aren't necessarily a poor tactic all the time. There are many examples where such a feature got an issue in the news. People internal to the WTO say that the turmoil surrounding the Seattle meeting did get counted as legitimate public opposition, and etched into people's minds that many are strongly opposed to centralized economic planning. Without the protests, it is pretty clear that many might view the World Bank, G20, WTO as positive institutions of international understanding and benevolent negotiation, like the UN.
There are also few grassroots organizing tools that have been effective at getting this point across in the news.
Yes, there are many great NGOs addressing issues of int'l economic fairness, but none in the media bother to look them up for the weekly coverage of such a meeting unless they do a stunt.
At the same time, we have to recognize street conflicts for what they are. Outside of a political convention or global gov't meeting, people trying to make a point or get attention are "addressing the government for redress of grievances" just like stated in the first amendment, and this is a 'reformist' or traditional political activity. It's not directly solving the problem (as in direct action) and it's not instigating the public to revolution. It just is what it is, and can be a useful tactic.
Another pattern I've noticed again and again and again is that there is almost no glory or utility in getting arrested. When a few people are grabbed for arrest and charges, everyone else always disperses and are unable to provide support to compensate for the unlucky person's situation. This is particularly true in Pittsburgh, where the march with the vandalism was all gone, and a bunch of students with navy blue hoodies or even wearing high heels were unfortunately dragged away by a police force with zero skills of discernment. (In my opinion, this ridiculous militaristic response which the black bloc 'taunted' out of National Guard and police may have been the best aspect of the demonstrations. Those students are all joining facebook groups and organizing against police brutality now, as totally unfair as it was. see:
http://www.whathappenedatpitt.com/forum/
When court cases are drawn out, it drains the community's resources, and I even find myself on the fence when the arrested person was reckless or misguided in a significant way. If they were doing something silly when they were caught that didn't speak well for the movement's goals, they're going to be dominating the fundraising scene and attention for months. When someone is charged, they will face hours of court time and possibly have this weighing over future job opportunities, for little personal gain. Don't get caught.
By the way - has everyone else noticed what a great success the breakaway march tactic was under the banner of the LGBT Bash back group. There are about 3-4 videos posted on google now which really should be taken down immediately, showing the march with vandals breaking windows on the periphery. About 8 people spot a police substation and break all its windows out, unstopped by the 4000 police officers in town. Give me a quick quote from Sun Tzu to capture the dynamic here.
This really came across like a mouse defeating a dragon or an elephant. The sound cannon LRAD was deployed for the first time, and by calling up 2000 national Guard troops, the city went into ridiculous excesses in planning. Yet... they weren't able to think even one step ahead, like in chess, to plan for what would happen *after* they disperse the crowd. The crowd might go to other areas of the city, and then the police forces were so slow in movement with all their equipment that they barely had the response time of a domestic burglary call - the police were there 10 minutes later and commenced chasing 20 year old college students with their bookbags around the dorm patio.
Hi Ryan,
Great article. Thank you for sharing your carefully thought-out thoughts and feelings drawing from a wide range of experiences.
If we build our relationships, deepen our solidarity, trust our instincts, and come together in creative strategy, we can still be out on the streets. There was not a single arrest on the DNC2RNC march of 2004 even though we were pushing boundaries and challenging the police state. Our ability to avoid arrests and violence, yet still be militant and strong, was largely due to the magic we were creating in our village and the beautiful people organizing. If we are tight, we can even use militant imagery in our art that exaggerates our actual gun-power on the ground. I agree that a lot of black bloc organizing is macho and disconnected to larger strategy. We need to empower feminists and women organizers who understand the personal politics of power and the importance of emotional bonding and long-term continuity in what we are doing on the streets as anarchists.
Trying to organize effective street protests over the internet with strangers is a ridiculous idea. Meeting up with anarchists from all over the country the day or two before a large-scale police state protest and trying to build effective strategy, is also putting too much pressure on ourselves. The only way to organize effectively is to get to know one another face to face in non-stressful situations, preparing ourselves for the more stressful situations in a nurturing environment.
That's why I love mobile villages that travel together in solidarity, like the DNC2RNC march from Boston to New York in 2004. When you spend 28 days with your comrades, you have more chances to have meaningful exchanges and conversation before entering a protest zone. In the case of the PNC2RNC bike ride from Madison to St. Paul last Summer, you could even spend quality time in nature alone out in the hills before coming back to the village hearth in the evening. Our hearth being the food support vehicle that Miss Calico Future drove up to Madison from Louisville, Kentucky.
TODAY, September 30th, marks the day Calico was killed by a car as she rode her bike home from work in Louisville last year. Calico was on the Democracy Uprising march of 2004, joining the Seeds of Peace food support vehicle that nourished our village with good cooking every night. In August of 2008, Jen drove her veggie-oil powered truck, Black Betty, up to Madison for the People's Networking Convention and then supported 40 riders for twelve days as we rode our bikes to the RNC. Comrades and friends all over the world tonight will be remembering Calico Future, Goddess Woman Eco-Warrior, who fed our souls as much as she fed our bodies. Her contribution is a good example of balance between militant street action organizing and rooted community-building. We miss you Calico! Check out the web site her friends in Louisville made for her after she died:
http://www.shoot-the-messenger.net/jen/
The Neverwood Collective worked together closely to improve on the organizing strategies of the DNC2RNC march when planning the bike ride from Madison to St. Paul in 2008. The village was even tighter and more strongly united this past Summer than it was four years before. Again, nobody got arrested and there were no violent assaults even though we were riding our bikes in a "gang" into the RNC protests. There were no guarantees. The police could have attacked us at any time, but building our relationships ahead of time, deepening our purpose and strategy, helped protect us from their brutality. We have to keep trying, to keep experimenting and giving voice to dissent at home and out in public.
A new collective is forming to continue the mobile village idea in 2010 from Madison to Detroit for the US Social Forum. Stay tuned for our zine coming out this Winter outlining our organizing strategy and vision. We will be a mobile village of resilience this time around with no big protest to greet us when the ride ends! Mad Love 2U from MadTown, USA! You should come to Madison and play a show Ryan. Or better yet, join the mobile village of resilience going 275 miles for ten days by bicycle from Madison to Detroit in June!
Love and Solidarity,
Thistle
Great article. Thank you for sharing your carefully thought-out thoughts and feelings drawing from a wide range of experiences.
If we build our relationships, deepen our solidarity, trust our instincts, and come together in creative strategy, we can still be out on the streets. There was not a single arrest on the DNC2RNC march of 2004 even though we were pushing boundaries and challenging the police state. Our ability to avoid arrests and violence, yet still be militant and strong, was largely due to the magic we were creating in our village and the beautiful people organizing. If we are tight, we can even use militant imagery in our art that exaggerates our actual gun-power on the ground. I agree that a lot of black bloc organizing is macho and disconnected to larger strategy. We need to empower feminists and women organizers who understand the personal politics of power and the importance of emotional bonding and long-term continuity in what we are doing on the streets as anarchists.
Trying to organize effective street protests over the internet with strangers is a ridiculous idea. Meeting up with anarchists from all over the country the day or two before a large-scale police state protest and trying to build effective strategy, is also putting too much pressure on ourselves. The only way to organize effectively is to get to know one another face to face in non-stressful situations, preparing ourselves for the more stressful situations in a nurturing environment.
That's why I love mobile villages that travel together in solidarity, like the DNC2RNC march from Boston to New York in 2004. When you spend 28 days with your comrades, you have more chances to have meaningful exchanges and conversation before entering a protest zone. In the case of the PNC2RNC bike ride from Madison to St. Paul last Summer, you could even spend quality time in nature alone out in the hills before coming back to the village hearth in the evening. Our hearth being the food support vehicle that Miss Calico Future drove up to Madison from Louisville, Kentucky.
TODAY, September 30th, marks the day Calico was killed by a car as she rode her bike home from work in Louisville last year. Calico was on the Democracy Uprising march of 2004, joining the Seeds of Peace food support vehicle that nourished our village with good cooking every night. In August of 2008, Jen drove her veggie-oil powered truck, Black Betty, up to Madison for the People's Networking Convention and then supported 40 riders for twelve days as we rode our bikes to the RNC. Comrades and friends all over the world tonight will be remembering Calico Future, Goddess Woman Eco-Warrior, who fed our souls as much as she fed our bodies. Her contribution is a good example of balance between militant street action organizing and rooted community-building. We miss you Calico! Check out the web site her friends in Louisville made for her after she died:
http://www.shoot-the-messenger.net/jen/
The Neverwood Collective worked together closely to improve on the organizing strategies of the DNC2RNC march when planning the bike ride from Madison to St. Paul in 2008. The village was even tighter and more strongly united this past Summer than it was four years before. Again, nobody got arrested and there were no violent assaults even though we were riding our bikes in a "gang" into the RNC protests. There were no guarantees. The police could have attacked us at any time, but building our relationships ahead of time, deepening our purpose and strategy, helped protect us from their brutality. We have to keep trying, to keep experimenting and giving voice to dissent at home and out in public.
A new collective is forming to continue the mobile village idea in 2010 from Madison to Detroit for the US Social Forum. Stay tuned for our zine coming out this Winter outlining our organizing strategy and vision. We will be a mobile village of resilience this time around with no big protest to greet us when the ride ends! Mad Love 2U from MadTown, USA! You should come to Madison and play a show Ryan. Or better yet, join the mobile village of resilience going 275 miles for ten days by bicycle from Madison to Detroit in June!
Love and Solidarity,
Thistle
For more information:
http://www.thistlespace.org
Thanks, Ryan, for writing this. I've only skimmed the comments, as I'm waiting to speak with my friends and comrades here at homebase about it. I'm very excited to hear their opinions, and how some of your arguments do and do not apply to our community here. Looks like we're gonna have to host another potluck-discussion-night! ;)
I've been reflecting a lot recently on mass mobilizations, manarchism, national anarchist convergences, racism/white-privelege within the "anarchist community", and militant/insurrectionary anarchism. I've been feeling pretty bummed about a lot of these things, as I can see fucked-up dynamics and a lack of critical thinking pretty much all over the place. And that shit pushes a lot of comrades away, and makes others, like myself, feel alienated a lot of the time.
I think the most helpful part of the article was some of the questions you ask towards the end, questioning tactics, strategies, goals, etc. We gotta have that voice in our heads, questioning every action, every moment of our lives. Not only "Why I tossing these garbage cans in the road?" or "What message do I want to convey to the media?" but also "How am I using my white privelege right now?" or "Am I making her feel uncomfortable?" or "I wonder what that person's preferred pronoun is?" We gotta voice these questions, share with others, and work out the answers together, every day, all the time. Thanks for reminding me.
I've been reflecting a lot recently on mass mobilizations, manarchism, national anarchist convergences, racism/white-privelege within the "anarchist community", and militant/insurrectionary anarchism. I've been feeling pretty bummed about a lot of these things, as I can see fucked-up dynamics and a lack of critical thinking pretty much all over the place. And that shit pushes a lot of comrades away, and makes others, like myself, feel alienated a lot of the time.
I think the most helpful part of the article was some of the questions you ask towards the end, questioning tactics, strategies, goals, etc. We gotta have that voice in our heads, questioning every action, every moment of our lives. Not only "Why I tossing these garbage cans in the road?" or "What message do I want to convey to the media?" but also "How am I using my white privelege right now?" or "Am I making her feel uncomfortable?" or "I wonder what that person's preferred pronoun is?" We gotta voice these questions, share with others, and work out the answers together, every day, all the time. Thanks for reminding me.
So...yes. I am very glad that someone at last is speaking to the foolish, oftentimes foolhardy and very dangerous tactics used to seemingly score brownie points with other anarchists at the cost of both the seeming goals of the project at hand, the personal integrity of everyone if the actors who are taking major risks for little payoff get caught, and ultimately the strength of the mission as a whole.
But I feel this analysis is lacking in at least one major point.
The point is that living in a war-torn society teaches us to gain 'points' through being at war with ourselves. I watch anarchists every day get very little sleep, not eat enough food, and generally compete with one another to see who can deprive themselves the most--be the most "heroic"--in order to supposedly further the cause the most.
This is dumb. This hurts any cause more than nearly anything else does--this strategy of self-annihilation and self-mutilation in hopes of exchanging these moments of self-sacrifice for some greater victory in a world to later come.
this world will never be here if we hope to usher it in using strategies based in misogyny, in a war against our own bodies, in hopes of creating and inspiring other people to create the kind of world we want to see. We create this new world with our everyday actions. We can either use the creative energy and power we have to transform our world into a safer, saner world where war does not exist, and create instead of use our energy for destructive ends; or, as many anarchists around me are currently choosing, we can use our energy to destroy what exists and encourage others to join the "fun."
Needless to say, part of the reason the antiwar movement failed is not because people did not CARE--it is rather because people do not WANT to join movements where the leaders are tired, irritable, give speeches that make no sense to most people because they use words that most folks cannot understand,
I have never understood the anarchist tendency to use academic language that most folks, including anarchists, never use with one another in brochures produced to theoretically attract people into causes who have no experience with "political organizing"--which oftentimes seems to mean, organizing according to anarchist philosophy as STATED anarchists, as opposed to simply organizing events with an awareness of the exchanges of power taking place in and around the topic at hand, in hopes of participating in an exchange of political power and standing.
I also don't think it's necessarily accurate to address people with no background or tools to analyze their current situation in relationship with larger political trends throughout history in the same ways organizers address one another at the kinds of events likely to bring out the same 50-200 people who are known widely as "organizers" and therefore attend virtually every single event that takes place in any given town or within a 30-mile radius. These folks are probably going to use different speak.
We go to war with one another, with ourselves, and oftentimes with other countries USUALLY because we believe our desires are preventing us from fitting into previously established gender norms, and I really, really wish that the local anarchists in this town anyway would pick up a feminist text every once in a while and figure this theory stuff out...while staring at those who have, most of whom are activists and doing far more good while lasting through it far better than most of what these folks are doing.
So long as self-avowed anarchists refuse to analyze their own relationships with gender politics, frankly, they will be inclined to practice the same levels of heroic bullshit that drive the actions of soldiers acting at the behest of the U.S. army. They will seek out male leaders who will "order" them, sometimes subtly, to do reprehensible things and treat others' bodies as though they do not matter. They will continue to have undisclosed PTSD and other disorders that will drive them into impossible situations and eventually they will begin to hurt the other people in the movements.
Movement will collapse, disabled at last and thoroughly unlinked underneath the weight of every unsaid thing, unstated need, and every unlistened-to demand for attention that anarchists--especially the local set of male anarchists, who at least in my town tend to take a noticeably front seat to this style of organizing while the womyn move in the background, GETTING STUFF DONE and doing the real, nonheroic, daily tasks that encourage and empower one another and enable anything to in fact get done at all.
Just my two cents, garnered after a long stint of silence [3 years' worth] standing in the face of people claiming to "know" what truth was...just exactly like the university whose power they claim to be so intent on fighting.
I'm more interested in personal and collective empowerment, frankly, rather than earning points by breaking my trust in my own self and my own heart's direction, but that's just me.
Without compassion and the ability to forgive ourselves for our failings, we will continue to be self-destructive and destructive to our own and others' movements because we won't be able to do anything else if we cannot face our true selves and desires and needs first...and any ideology that we can employ to do that will simply be used as a cover for the real inner work that is not being done and is sorely needed for the sake of all humanity.
But I feel this analysis is lacking in at least one major point.
The point is that living in a war-torn society teaches us to gain 'points' through being at war with ourselves. I watch anarchists every day get very little sleep, not eat enough food, and generally compete with one another to see who can deprive themselves the most--be the most "heroic"--in order to supposedly further the cause the most.
This is dumb. This hurts any cause more than nearly anything else does--this strategy of self-annihilation and self-mutilation in hopes of exchanging these moments of self-sacrifice for some greater victory in a world to later come.
this world will never be here if we hope to usher it in using strategies based in misogyny, in a war against our own bodies, in hopes of creating and inspiring other people to create the kind of world we want to see. We create this new world with our everyday actions. We can either use the creative energy and power we have to transform our world into a safer, saner world where war does not exist, and create instead of use our energy for destructive ends; or, as many anarchists around me are currently choosing, we can use our energy to destroy what exists and encourage others to join the "fun."
Needless to say, part of the reason the antiwar movement failed is not because people did not CARE--it is rather because people do not WANT to join movements where the leaders are tired, irritable, give speeches that make no sense to most people because they use words that most folks cannot understand,
I have never understood the anarchist tendency to use academic language that most folks, including anarchists, never use with one another in brochures produced to theoretically attract people into causes who have no experience with "political organizing"--which oftentimes seems to mean, organizing according to anarchist philosophy as STATED anarchists, as opposed to simply organizing events with an awareness of the exchanges of power taking place in and around the topic at hand, in hopes of participating in an exchange of political power and standing.
I also don't think it's necessarily accurate to address people with no background or tools to analyze their current situation in relationship with larger political trends throughout history in the same ways organizers address one another at the kinds of events likely to bring out the same 50-200 people who are known widely as "organizers" and therefore attend virtually every single event that takes place in any given town or within a 30-mile radius. These folks are probably going to use different speak.
We go to war with one another, with ourselves, and oftentimes with other countries USUALLY because we believe our desires are preventing us from fitting into previously established gender norms, and I really, really wish that the local anarchists in this town anyway would pick up a feminist text every once in a while and figure this theory stuff out...while staring at those who have, most of whom are activists and doing far more good while lasting through it far better than most of what these folks are doing.
So long as self-avowed anarchists refuse to analyze their own relationships with gender politics, frankly, they will be inclined to practice the same levels of heroic bullshit that drive the actions of soldiers acting at the behest of the U.S. army. They will seek out male leaders who will "order" them, sometimes subtly, to do reprehensible things and treat others' bodies as though they do not matter. They will continue to have undisclosed PTSD and other disorders that will drive them into impossible situations and eventually they will begin to hurt the other people in the movements.
Movement will collapse, disabled at last and thoroughly unlinked underneath the weight of every unsaid thing, unstated need, and every unlistened-to demand for attention that anarchists--especially the local set of male anarchists, who at least in my town tend to take a noticeably front seat to this style of organizing while the womyn move in the background, GETTING STUFF DONE and doing the real, nonheroic, daily tasks that encourage and empower one another and enable anything to in fact get done at all.
Just my two cents, garnered after a long stint of silence [3 years' worth] standing in the face of people claiming to "know" what truth was...just exactly like the university whose power they claim to be so intent on fighting.
I'm more interested in personal and collective empowerment, frankly, rather than earning points by breaking my trust in my own self and my own heart's direction, but that's just me.
Without compassion and the ability to forgive ourselves for our failings, we will continue to be self-destructive and destructive to our own and others' movements because we won't be able to do anything else if we cannot face our true selves and desires and needs first...and any ideology that we can employ to do that will simply be used as a cover for the real inner work that is not being done and is sorely needed for the sake of all humanity.
Wow....what a beautiful, well-thought and well-conveyed article on anarchism, social change and the tactics and strategies to get there!! I couldn't agree more that the more radical-living (low carbon footprint and choosing freedom over money) leftists need to consider these questions more often and if they are sincere about making REAL steps towards freedom and creative societies for all of us...then we must take our work more seriously and be more inclusive not dismissive in the process.
KUDOS!!!
KUDOS!!!
Krishnamurti pretty accurately describes humans within this civilization as controlled by participating obsessively in conflict so I won't go any further on that point.
Everyone is wondering what has happened since Seattle with the viability of protest. There are less protesters, while more to protest against. We are virtually under siege by a Shock & Awe Economic Terror campaign by the elites of the world and their fucking capitalist idiocy. The early protests of the Iraq War had more protesters than any comparable Vietnam protests but the elites have learned they can just IGNORE them. Their media, the eyes of the People, sell us propaganda as news and the masses stay duped but amorphously angry. The random violence always appeals to the materialist obsession of capitalist workers and their knee jerk reaction. Seeing people injured and going to jail for free speech denied, and police space age weaponry packaged in robot gear scares the crap out of any sensible citizen who might want to join in. In other words checkmate on this phase of the game.
It's time for people who want to live in a world like that portrayed in the book Ecotopia, whether they be anarchists, communists, socialists or just lefties, to join together and get a common plan for replacing the current abomination. In my mind we need to coalesce behind a concise set of principles and policies that will replace this fucking train wreck of an oligarchic fake republic serving the rich. I know many will cringe at my suggestions below, but if we don't have some idea of the beginnings of a good replacement for the existing system how can anybody else give us support, much less the middle-classes. Is just yelling pertinent critiques on handmade signs that are trashed in 5 minutes by darth vaderettes doing any good? I say no.
I was arrested and dungeoned in NYC during the 2004 RNC where the entire length of protests were peaceful and effective within the city of New York, until they illegally took everyone away. The problem was no one else knew, even in NYC, that the protests or the illegal detentions ever happened. The media coverage and lack of coverage omitted it from the consciousness of the public.
So what are we to do to be effective in getting a new system? Seems to me we need to stop confronting them in ways that allow them to appear so effective. Maybe we need to be creative like the recent flash mob at Whole Paycheck...stuff like that goes a long way to culling support and being fun. The sitins at insurance companies to demand a stop of "death panels" also sounds effective and sympathetic to the average citizen. Then there are the factory occupations here, in Argentina and France and elsewhere. We need to be CREATIVE and find some innovative methods of checkmating them with smarts instead of being crushed with our puny signs and bricks by the Dark Lord and their brutish cruelty. And have real fun on the way.
Other than this we need to geometrically increase our localized ecotopian activities in our local communities and withdraw from their corporate abomination and start localizing a new economy on our own. Then get the ill-informed local citizenry informed so they can join in. Boycott all corporation products and DIY our own world that is better than their plastic Darth Vaderism. Then inform the middle-class matrix dwellers about a plan for society that is way superior to their rat-race-to-obliteration-on-a-flywheel that we are served up with now.
The middle-class and poor all know they/we are headed for self destruction, but don't see any options. The best option I know as an appropriate transition for us is the Green Platform. If all the left side parties and lobby organizations and protest groups would hold up that platform as their replacement objective for society, and could get society informed as to the contents of this platform (I encourage people to read this document in its entirety before condemning this suggestion... http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/2004platform.pdf) If anybody has a better idea that retains the possibility for direct democracy I would like to hear about it. But the most important thing to me is that all of us maintain participation in our self organization to create a government or system of cooperative functioning that allows a withdrawal from over-population and consumer manufacturing and culture. This seems to me impossible if we don't come up with a rational and acceptable replacement alternative, and let people know about it.
Everyone is wondering what has happened since Seattle with the viability of protest. There are less protesters, while more to protest against. We are virtually under siege by a Shock & Awe Economic Terror campaign by the elites of the world and their fucking capitalist idiocy. The early protests of the Iraq War had more protesters than any comparable Vietnam protests but the elites have learned they can just IGNORE them. Their media, the eyes of the People, sell us propaganda as news and the masses stay duped but amorphously angry. The random violence always appeals to the materialist obsession of capitalist workers and their knee jerk reaction. Seeing people injured and going to jail for free speech denied, and police space age weaponry packaged in robot gear scares the crap out of any sensible citizen who might want to join in. In other words checkmate on this phase of the game.
It's time for people who want to live in a world like that portrayed in the book Ecotopia, whether they be anarchists, communists, socialists or just lefties, to join together and get a common plan for replacing the current abomination. In my mind we need to coalesce behind a concise set of principles and policies that will replace this fucking train wreck of an oligarchic fake republic serving the rich. I know many will cringe at my suggestions below, but if we don't have some idea of the beginnings of a good replacement for the existing system how can anybody else give us support, much less the middle-classes. Is just yelling pertinent critiques on handmade signs that are trashed in 5 minutes by darth vaderettes doing any good? I say no.
I was arrested and dungeoned in NYC during the 2004 RNC where the entire length of protests were peaceful and effective within the city of New York, until they illegally took everyone away. The problem was no one else knew, even in NYC, that the protests or the illegal detentions ever happened. The media coverage and lack of coverage omitted it from the consciousness of the public.
So what are we to do to be effective in getting a new system? Seems to me we need to stop confronting them in ways that allow them to appear so effective. Maybe we need to be creative like the recent flash mob at Whole Paycheck...stuff like that goes a long way to culling support and being fun. The sitins at insurance companies to demand a stop of "death panels" also sounds effective and sympathetic to the average citizen. Then there are the factory occupations here, in Argentina and France and elsewhere. We need to be CREATIVE and find some innovative methods of checkmating them with smarts instead of being crushed with our puny signs and bricks by the Dark Lord and their brutish cruelty. And have real fun on the way.
Other than this we need to geometrically increase our localized ecotopian activities in our local communities and withdraw from their corporate abomination and start localizing a new economy on our own. Then get the ill-informed local citizenry informed so they can join in. Boycott all corporation products and DIY our own world that is better than their plastic Darth Vaderism. Then inform the middle-class matrix dwellers about a plan for society that is way superior to their rat-race-to-obliteration-on-a-flywheel that we are served up with now.
The middle-class and poor all know they/we are headed for self destruction, but don't see any options. The best option I know as an appropriate transition for us is the Green Platform. If all the left side parties and lobby organizations and protest groups would hold up that platform as their replacement objective for society, and could get society informed as to the contents of this platform (I encourage people to read this document in its entirety before condemning this suggestion... http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/2004platform.pdf) If anybody has a better idea that retains the possibility for direct democracy I would like to hear about it. But the most important thing to me is that all of us maintain participation in our self organization to create a government or system of cooperative functioning that allows a withdrawal from over-population and consumer manufacturing and culture. This seems to me impossible if we don't come up with a rational and acceptable replacement alternative, and let people know about it.
Do you want to destroy your adversary? This is what confuses me. I am incredibly dismayed by the dehumanization of the Police Officers and other Emergency Responders who are threatened and hurt by anarchist protest actions. I am under the impression that anarchism is at its roots humanistic. If the people who are jobbed by society to protect the individual members of that society are correspondingly deemed inhuman, I can see that as the ultimate anti-institutional statement. But if they're still people, no matter what opposing systems are present and what they say, truth is not served. Anarchists, it seems to me, still believe in the concept of truth. If anarchism means that there is no truth, then the problem they face is much more substantial than any police action or punitive result. Life without any truth is as many a protester has discovered ultimately hell. Blaming "them" for causing "your" hell will only lead to endless conflict, not the neighborhoods we want to live and work in.
i believe to be autistic lots of you who are bashing on what happened weren't even fucking there and are going off of what you heard happen there was no riot but a police riot.
by bashing on this you are hurting the movement we need every one on the streets and when its over return home and do your shit you need to do there and think about it locally tell the next big event.
global is local, local is global
by bashing on this you are hurting the movement we need every one on the streets and when its over return home and do your shit you need to do there and think about it locally tell the next big event.
global is local, local is global
'Biz' commented;
"I've found that sitting around in my living room on a Friday night with twenty other anarchists agree on most things and arguing about semantics is nothing more than masturbation. Yeah, it's healthy and it's fun and it makes me feel good, but it's not changing anything. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk amongst ourselves, but doing only that keeps us out of touch with the millions of other people that we'd like to join our cause."
Thanks Biz and Ryan for your honesty. There is nothing wrong with self-critique, and we can consider Ryan as a "self" because he attended several protests in the past. At some point it seems he changed his mind in the effectiveness of the protests and whether or not he should even be there.
Either way, Ryan's article raises several important questions, and people would be wise to avoid having any hurt egos and try to use the article as something to learn from. If people claim that they are the one's "doing something" to stop the G20 or whatever other issue they protest, yet are not effective in their goal, are others not allowed to offer some advice on what could be done differently. Sometimes a view from further away is clearer than a view from the direct point of conflict (rumbles and melees with police) on the streets.
How could anarchists reach out to allies across the aisle? Here we're not talking about the centrist policies of the Obama administration, the aisle is not so wide in the U.S. Capital between establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans.
However, the aisle is significantly wider between "far left" leaning anarchists and "far right" leaning libertatians, even though both groups are adamantly opposed to G20 and other forms of globalization (NAFTA/WTO).
Some left leaning anarchists refuse any sort of coalition building with the "far right" because they often detect Nazi-like undertones coming from the libertarian anti-globalists, or simply disagree with their reasons for opposing free trade polices and policies of G20 nations. For example, many libertarians are against undocumented immigration and correctly oppose NAFTA/WTO as the source of the problem, yet left leaning anarchists are more upset that the libertarians oppose undocumented immigration! Left leaning anarchists are also opposed to NAFTA/WTO, though refuse any solidarity with the libertarians because the undocumented immigration issue serves to split them into opposing camps.
Maybe people from the "far right" libertarian camps also refuse to attend these protests because they feel they could be singled out by the leftists for having other views or symbols (ex. Odin's cross) that reflect a different ideology.
As another "protest drop-out" i can agree with Ryan somewhat, and am discouraged by the protests almost always devolving into shouting and wrestling matches with the police, when instead people should be focusing their actions on the G20 (or biotech corporations, or whatever other specific protest topic) and not being distracted by fighting with the police.
Of course the overtly aggressive police tactics make this nearly impossible to accomplish, so every protest ends up with the "boys in black" wrassling with the "boys in blue" and a whole lot of legal and even medical expenses from these imbalanced encounters..
When the police state system learns from their mistakes and evolves their responses to better contain anarchist protest tactics, that requires an alteration of the protest tactics to something new that police are not prepared for. Not saying what this "something new" should be, that is up to the protest organizers to discuss amongst themselves..
Since the successes of Seattle's WTO protests, the state system has several years to practice and refine their containment methods, and we have not yet seen very much alteration in the protest tactics themselves. Evolution in nature shows that a toxic chemical produced by a certain plant species can over several generations be resisted by an alteration in a caterpillar's genetic code, so then the plant must make a new chemical that can attack the caterpillar's system. This protects the plant for a while, until the next resistant generation of caterpillar's comes along. So on it goes from the beginning of time to all eternity, the natural cycle of protections and resistances.
In this example i am comparing the protesters with plants and the police with caterpillars. Our "protective toxins" are the protest tactics that need to evolve as the police have now learned how to resist our protections.
To sum up; the two major flaws of current anarchist protest tactics are;
lack of reaching out to other potential allies outside of the anarchist's ideological cliques,
and the police having several years to learn how to contain anarchist protest tactics, without matching changes coming from the protest tactics.
Best wishes to ALL who engage in struggle against the corporate and government establishments, remember, lack of physical support does not imply lack of spiritual support! No, we're not just sitting back in our easy chair saying prayers for the protesters, though we're doing other actions less noticeable than the direct conflicts of street protests..
"I've found that sitting around in my living room on a Friday night with twenty other anarchists agree on most things and arguing about semantics is nothing more than masturbation. Yeah, it's healthy and it's fun and it makes me feel good, but it's not changing anything. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk amongst ourselves, but doing only that keeps us out of touch with the millions of other people that we'd like to join our cause."
Thanks Biz and Ryan for your honesty. There is nothing wrong with self-critique, and we can consider Ryan as a "self" because he attended several protests in the past. At some point it seems he changed his mind in the effectiveness of the protests and whether or not he should even be there.
Either way, Ryan's article raises several important questions, and people would be wise to avoid having any hurt egos and try to use the article as something to learn from. If people claim that they are the one's "doing something" to stop the G20 or whatever other issue they protest, yet are not effective in their goal, are others not allowed to offer some advice on what could be done differently. Sometimes a view from further away is clearer than a view from the direct point of conflict (rumbles and melees with police) on the streets.
How could anarchists reach out to allies across the aisle? Here we're not talking about the centrist policies of the Obama administration, the aisle is not so wide in the U.S. Capital between establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans.
However, the aisle is significantly wider between "far left" leaning anarchists and "far right" leaning libertatians, even though both groups are adamantly opposed to G20 and other forms of globalization (NAFTA/WTO).
Some left leaning anarchists refuse any sort of coalition building with the "far right" because they often detect Nazi-like undertones coming from the libertarian anti-globalists, or simply disagree with their reasons for opposing free trade polices and policies of G20 nations. For example, many libertarians are against undocumented immigration and correctly oppose NAFTA/WTO as the source of the problem, yet left leaning anarchists are more upset that the libertarians oppose undocumented immigration! Left leaning anarchists are also opposed to NAFTA/WTO, though refuse any solidarity with the libertarians because the undocumented immigration issue serves to split them into opposing camps.
Maybe people from the "far right" libertarian camps also refuse to attend these protests because they feel they could be singled out by the leftists for having other views or symbols (ex. Odin's cross) that reflect a different ideology.
As another "protest drop-out" i can agree with Ryan somewhat, and am discouraged by the protests almost always devolving into shouting and wrestling matches with the police, when instead people should be focusing their actions on the G20 (or biotech corporations, or whatever other specific protest topic) and not being distracted by fighting with the police.
Of course the overtly aggressive police tactics make this nearly impossible to accomplish, so every protest ends up with the "boys in black" wrassling with the "boys in blue" and a whole lot of legal and even medical expenses from these imbalanced encounters..
When the police state system learns from their mistakes and evolves their responses to better contain anarchist protest tactics, that requires an alteration of the protest tactics to something new that police are not prepared for. Not saying what this "something new" should be, that is up to the protest organizers to discuss amongst themselves..
Since the successes of Seattle's WTO protests, the state system has several years to practice and refine their containment methods, and we have not yet seen very much alteration in the protest tactics themselves. Evolution in nature shows that a toxic chemical produced by a certain plant species can over several generations be resisted by an alteration in a caterpillar's genetic code, so then the plant must make a new chemical that can attack the caterpillar's system. This protects the plant for a while, until the next resistant generation of caterpillar's comes along. So on it goes from the beginning of time to all eternity, the natural cycle of protections and resistances.
In this example i am comparing the protesters with plants and the police with caterpillars. Our "protective toxins" are the protest tactics that need to evolve as the police have now learned how to resist our protections.
To sum up; the two major flaws of current anarchist protest tactics are;
lack of reaching out to other potential allies outside of the anarchist's ideological cliques,
and the police having several years to learn how to contain anarchist protest tactics, without matching changes coming from the protest tactics.
Best wishes to ALL who engage in struggle against the corporate and government establishments, remember, lack of physical support does not imply lack of spiritual support! No, we're not just sitting back in our easy chair saying prayers for the protesters, though we're doing other actions less noticeable than the direct conflicts of street protests..
Having sifted through Ryan's essay and the comments, here's a few observations, and a concrete proposal for a shift in tactics that will blow the enemy's minds, and destroy them.
First of all, we don't "need" any "alliance" or "tolerance" of fascist "Libertarian" poseur "anarchists". FUCK a bunch of "Social Darwinist" elitist pigs, who have nothing but contempt for the masses.
Anarchism is a communist tendency, which calls for immediate self-rule, now, not some day, maybe, in the collective, social sense, NOT in some bogus, contrived anti-collectivist bourgeois ultra-individualist chaos freak sense.
Second, I agree that there is a lack of focus and explicit purpose in the anarchist movement, and in the "direct action" tactics presently being employed.
Part of that is because of "tolerance" of a lot of jive bullshit that just waters down and detracts from our unity of will, and makes us look bad.
But there needs to be a lot more discussion on this topic, toward a more coherent and cohesive consensus on what we are actually fighting for, and why, and what we hope to ultimately accomplish...in order to effectively decide, as a movement, collectively, and as individuals, how, exactly, we should proceed, going forward.
I know, I know, that sounds like...a drag. More fun to just go out and fuck shit up, right? Well, STFU, and consider what it's really going to take, to make a revolution.
Consider how much of a drag it is, for people to be getting burned out, to be drifting away, and demoralized by the dwindling numbers of mostly ill-informed, poorly-prepared new people we tend to pull into the struggle.
Consider how much of a drag it is, to have people among us who have been engaged in this struggle for 10, 20, 30 years and more, and a history going back over a hundred years, with little or no real success, in terms of actually really fundamentally, materially, challenging the root contradictions of capitalism.
What we need is less chaos, and more focus, both internally, collectively, within the movement, and in terms of how the general public (including potential "recruits") perceive us.
I have a proposal, for how to focus, such that we can seize and transform the power in our society, from an elitist monopoly corporate fascist dictatorship, into a genuinely anarchist, collective consensus for justice and peace, to save the planet, through mutual aid, cooperation, and solidarity, locally, regionally, "nationally", and world-wide...permanently, so we can surge forward into the 21st Century, and deal with whatever new problems and issues that are certain to arise, and whatever old throwback issues and problems may continue to raise their ugly heads.
It's simple. First we have to set aside the insane, obsessive, dogmatic, doctrinaire, rhetorical 100-year old catechisms of "revolutionary" theory and practice, and recognize that they do not, have not, and will not work, in the here and now.
Conditions have changed.
I'm not saying that all the history and seminal theoretical basis of our struggle should just be thrown out the window, or forgotten. What I'm saying is that conditions have changed, and we must adapt, to survive, and to evolve.
If you have seriously studied any of the seminal theorists and practitioners of revolution, you may recall, that despite many differences between them, one thing that they all warn about, is that we must not get hung up in dogmatic doctrinaire throwback rhetoric and practice...conditions change, and we must be willing and able to adapt.
Anarchy is not a religion, with a pat catechism. It's a social theory and practice, and society evolves, as conditions change, and thus our theory and practice must also, if we are to remain relevant, effective, and ultimately successful in our struggle.
OK, so then we need to consider exactly how society, and the conditions have changed, and what the implications of that may be for our theory and practice.
While there remain many vestiges of the old society embedded in the new, and nothing is absolute in life, especially in politics, where everything is more or less relative, there are some very significant differences now, from say, the 1700's, when most of our present roots were conceived.
For one thing, society is not just barely emerging from feudalism, and starting out with a completely new system of capitalism. This is no small matter. Capitalism has been around for a long time now, and is indeed more or less morphing into a much more advanced, mature, or, shall we say, moribund stage, of fascism.
As it's access to international markets becomes more and more curtailed, by international development and competition, capitalism is forced to turn within, and to devour it's own brood, here at home, to satisfy it's insatiable lust for profit.
For another thing, the masses are not primarily illiterate peasants, steeped in a thousand years of feudalism and superstition. Almost everyone knows how to read and write, and do basic math.
And there is a considerably more substantial inter-dependance among people now, who tend to be much more urban, or at least suburban, than isolated, self-sustaining rural communities. Indeed, even what remains of our rural population is much more interlocked, connected and educated than the old peasantry ever was.
And how about this: It no longer takes a year or more, for information to get from one side of the country to the other, and people themselves are also much more mobile.
Alright...back in the old days, under those conditions, perhaps our seminal theorists, of all stripes, including the most radical anarchists, can be forgiven for succumbing to the essentially bourgeois notion that the masses "needed" a substantial degree of "leadership" from an elite vanguard of dedicated revolutionary theorists, organizers and fighters.
Rather than debate that issue, let's just say that the conditions have now substantially changed. If an elite was ever necessary, or desirable, that is very much less the case now, in terms of the availability of, and the ability to use, information, ideas, and technique, of all kinds, among the general population, in terms of now being materially able to manage our own affairs, individually, or collectively, in the social sense.
Now, you can split hairs and nit pick, about how substantial that difference may be now, and whether or not it's sufficient, and you may not necessarily be wrong, per se, on any given point.
Media, education, and information flow in general, while much more widely available, is also pretty much totally controlled by the enemy, such that any potentials of that availability remain seriously compromised.
The state has not "withered" away, to give way to communism (ie: self-rule, in the social sense, by the masses...ie: democracy). Virtually all power remains in the hands of ruthless, vicious, self-perpetuating elites, who continue to coerce, weasel, lie and manipulate, every way they can, to considerable effect, controlling everything, pretty much, still.
But I would point out that while this aspect of present conditions may seem "the same" as it ever was, there are actually pretty substantial and significant differences.
For one thing, there never used to be any such long-term historical rhetorical ploy as "democracy", lol.
There was no pretense or prospect offered for any such thing, back then, in the 1700's, by the elites, to the masses.
It was just common, accepted knowledge that elites were "necessary", always had been, and always would be, and that such was even the "will of God", lol, largely based on a notion that people are just naturally born damned, and thus degenerate, venal and completely self absorbed, and thus could not be "trusted" with any responsibility for their own lives, let alone society, whatsoever.
"Only" a tiny percentage of the population, the more "enlightened", well educated elites, were considered, or allowed, to have sufficient skills, information or power to manage society, in order to "protect" and "shepherd" the masses, like sheep...to be fleeced and eaten by the privileged, super-rich elites, basically.
While those who still cling to such elitist perspectives to this day still tend to embrace such an "analysis", the fact is, the vast majority of people these days just aren't buying that jive, and expect and want to have considerably more say in matters, and, indeed, expect and want democracy, where we all decide what we need and want, democratically, not elites.
Now, you can argue and split hairs and parse the semantics all you want, and you may not be wrong, per se, about a very large percentage of the population being too stupid or deluded, and that "they" either want elite rule, really, or that "they" don't realize that they don't really have democracy...and you can point out that, in any case, we are a long way from actually having real democracy.
But I'm just saying, the rhetoric of the ruling classes, and the expectations and aspirations of the masses really are nowhere near the same as they used to be, back in the day when all of our revolutionary theory was developed.
Conditions in this regard have changed, very significantly and substantially, even if there may not have been an absolute and complete transformation in the reality, of how society actually operates...people do, in fact, tend to want and expect that change, in theory, ideally.
Such a theory, of democracy, and any attempt at implementing it in actual practice, was virtually unheard of, back in the day, which, of course, is what made communism (ie: social self rule, by the masses, ie: democracy, instead of elite rule), and the founding of the USA, such a revolutionary concept.
OK, this brings us to the need to recognize that the most fundamental revolutionary concept is NOT rioting in the streets, agitation, organizing among the grass roots, or revolutionary insurrection, etc. etc....those are all tactics, within a purposeful strategy...to achieve communism, ie: social self rule by the masses, democracy, instead of elite rule.
Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary concept.
Stay with me, now. You know I'm right, so far.
Everyone with a brain knows that what we now have in the US and similar "systems" elsewhere is a perverse co-optation of that theoretical concept of democracy.
It was used, rhetorically, opportunistically, to entice the masses to support the overthrow of feudalism, and to install a new Bourgeoisie capitalist class as the new elite. OK, that's obvious.
They never had any intention or desire to allow actual real democracy, which is clear from the polemics they published in the newspapers of the day, talking about how real democracy would be nothing but "mob rule" and "anarchy", like, chaos, lol.
But they convinced the masses that democracy was possible, and desirable, and the masses went along with the overthrow of feudalism, and, in fact, in some regards, conditions were somewhat improved in the process, to a degree.
What's not so obvious, it seems, to many revolutionaries, is that when the enemy is forced to change their mode of exercising power, to change their rhetoric, to maneuver and posture and weasel, to co-opt revolutionary demands, that is not necessarily a total and absolute defeat for the revolution. Tactically, it may be a defeat, in that it thwarts a real overthrow of power, at least temporarily.
But strategically, it sows the seed for further struggle, and ultimate revolutionary victory. The more the enemy is forced to try to co-opt the demands of the masses, the more opportunity arises, to press the contradictions, and to demand the real thing.
It indicates that the rhetoric, and the theoretical concepts they have so perversely "adopted" and, in reality, adapted to their own interests, have actually found such substantial resonance among the masses that they can no longer just ignore or suppress it, but that they have been forced, by the pressure of the masses, to change their tactics, to regroup, and to develop a whole new line and practice.
They can no longer rule, in the manner they did before. That's a critical moment, when revolution can advance.
Like now, with big oil companies suddenly starting to run major PR campaigns about how "green" they are, instead of spending those millions of dollars like they used to, slagging environmentalists, for example. Disgusting, isn't it?
But have you ever seen the old ads they used to run? Google up Mobil Oil's old ads, sometime, for a clue. Believe me, there's a world of difference, and it's real...not in their actual practice, so much...but in the fact that they have been forced to recognize that they can no longer rule in the manner that they did before.
Such developments can be a good thing, if we are poised to further press the contradictions.
Anyone involved in direct action in the streets knows that it can be a great tactical victory in battle, to throw the enemy off balance, and force them to regroup and re-tactize, even if it does not necessarily mean that you have won the war, strategically, yet, heh.
Alright, let's cut to the chase here. What I'm leading up to is the fact that we are now at a critical tipping point, in this struggle for democracy.
This is not the 1800's, in post feudal Europe, or 1917 Russia, heh, or even the US of the 1960's or 1970's. This is here, and now, in the USA, and something significant has happened.
Despite a 40 year, full court press monopoly corporate fascist commercial mass media propaganda blitz, 24/7, on all channels, public opinion has shifted in this country, to a very substantial degree.
The right is no longer politically correct in this country. Trust me, this is a change, and it's very substantial and significant, and it needs to be recognized, accepted, and embraced by all revolutionaries.
The American peoples are now staunchly against racism, sexism, eco-rape, murderous monopoly corporate rip off and imperialist warmongering profiteering, and we have been for quite awhile now, by an increasing majority, and that trend is accelerating.
Public opinion has reached a critical mass.
The right has barely managed to seize and hold the power these many years only by turning out their entire wing-nut constituency, and suppressing likely Democratic Party voters, by hook and by crook.
The right has no electoral reserves to call up. They are all in. And they just got their asses kicked. They have been soundly rejected by the masses.
Indeed, Obama stepped up and called for justice and peace, to save the planet, and unprecedented numbers of youth, and virtually all people of color rejected calls for electoral boycott and vote splitting, and "voted with their feet", marching to the polls to elect Obama, and on his coat tails, a Progressive Caucus majority, within a Democratic Majority in the Congress.
This is not about the authenticity of Obama, or of the Democrats, in terms of their real intentions or even their ability to deliver what they have promised.
It's about the hopes and expectations, the aspirations, of the masses. The just and legitimate demand of the masses, for actual, real democracy.
What I'm proposing is that this is a critical juncture, for pressing the contradictions of a bogus, contrived, bourgeois monopoly corporate commercial mass media "democracy", to the breaking point, or, a break-through point...toward actually seizing the power in this country.
The real politik of the present situation is that the Blue Dogs (conservative Democrats) and the Republicans retain sufficient plurality in Congress to block, delay and sabotage everything the Progressive Caucus majority tries to do, even despite a Democratic Majority.
This is causing a lot of frustration, angst and hubris, among the population, especially in the face of a burgeoning right wing full court press propaganda blitz to demonize and discredit Obama, the Democrats, and the left.
The right want to demoralize the electorate, to deny any hope for really changing anything.
The right are totally freaking out, because they know they are dead meat, politically, anymore. They are calling for political assassination, mass murder, and civil war.
They have lost it, and they know it.
I say it's now time to accept and follow the lead of the masses, and to engage the enemy in the one arena he hates and fears most, the electoral arena.
I think we should explicitly support the demand of the masses, for democracy, and commit to direct action, to fulfill it.
Some 100 million eligibles refused to vote in the last election, even for Obama, mainly out of disgust with the Blue Dogs, and the perception of "no difference" between the parties.
That is a very substantial, latent, mostly progressive electoral pool.
Conditions have changed, and it's time we took a serious look at calling off the electoral boycott, and vote splitting, to deal a final coup de grace to the right in this country.
Then, we can proceed to sort out the"moderates", "liberals" and "progressives", toward implementing actual real democracy.
It's time to finally, once and for all, press the contradictions of commercial mass media "democracy", by overwhelming it, swamping it, with an unprecedented, historic, interim election voter turnout in 2010, and to follow that up with more of the same in 2012.
The entire strategy of the right is to precipitate the usual low voter turnout for interim elections, in 2010, when half the Congress will be up for re-election or replacement. They are hoping that usual low voter turnout will allow them to regain enough seats in Congress to maintain or regain sufficient power to ensure that Obama and the Democrats "fail" to deliver on any of their promises, to suppress the prospect for any motion, however tentative and tenuous, toward democracy in this country.
Everybody can see it, everybody knows it.
What they are not expecting, is for us to call off the electoral boycott and splitting rhetoric, and to go down to our local Democratic Party headquarters, and take it over, by being the ones who show up to do the work, participate and vote in the meetings, etc., to mobilize the electorate, to purge the Blue Dogs and what remains of the Republicans from all levers of power.
I guarantee, we can do this. Virtually every party headquarters is starved for volunteers, committee members, and functionaries. We can take it over, and decide what the platform will be, and who the candidates will be.
Right now, they are mainly mobilizing for the local and state elections coming up in November. This is an excellent time to weasel our asses in there, and learn the ropes, and take it over, in preparation for the campaigns in 2010, which will be absolutely critical in tipping the balance of power in Congress, or not.
Brothers and sisters, this will do more than any amount of protests or demonstrations will accomplish, in terms of ending the wars, going green, getting health care for everyone, or resolving any of the many other issues we care so much about.
Nothing will be changed by electoral boycott or vote splitting.
We need a real change, to have any real hope for the future. And it's not just going to happen because we stomp our feet and scream. We have to make it happen, by engaging the enemy for real, by denying them the power.
Only then will we be in a material position to materially suppress and destroy capitalism and it's moribund form, fascism.
We have to seize the power in the most viable party, that the masses have chosen to support. We have to accept the leadership of the masses and follow them, to achieve the final victory. We have to take over the Democrats, for democracy.
I'm not saying it will be easy. One thing for sure, is that it won't be enough to merely have a "voice", or a "seat at the table", or even a majority. We need a super-majority of progressives, to completely take the motherfucker over, to the very greatest extent that we can, all the way up and down the ladders of power, from your local city council and county board of supervisors, to the state and national levels.
As long as the Chamber of Commerce is in charge of anything, we are all going to continue to be royally screwed, at any level. When we are in charge, then we get to choose who to hire for local police chief, city attorney, development officer, etc. and we will tell them what their marching orders are...and so it goes, at all levels.
We can change the whole thing, any way we want, if we are in charge.
We can't do jack shit, meanwhile, people,.
Aren't you tired of futile symbolic gestures of protest and defiance, that accomplish absolutely nothing?
Seize the Time!
Seize the Power!
All Power to the People!
All Out for 2010 and 2012!
Bring a Democratic Progressive Caucus Super-Majority!
Death to capitalism, as we know it, and it's moribund form, fascism!
First of all, we don't "need" any "alliance" or "tolerance" of fascist "Libertarian" poseur "anarchists". FUCK a bunch of "Social Darwinist" elitist pigs, who have nothing but contempt for the masses.
Anarchism is a communist tendency, which calls for immediate self-rule, now, not some day, maybe, in the collective, social sense, NOT in some bogus, contrived anti-collectivist bourgeois ultra-individualist chaos freak sense.
Second, I agree that there is a lack of focus and explicit purpose in the anarchist movement, and in the "direct action" tactics presently being employed.
Part of that is because of "tolerance" of a lot of jive bullshit that just waters down and detracts from our unity of will, and makes us look bad.
But there needs to be a lot more discussion on this topic, toward a more coherent and cohesive consensus on what we are actually fighting for, and why, and what we hope to ultimately accomplish...in order to effectively decide, as a movement, collectively, and as individuals, how, exactly, we should proceed, going forward.
I know, I know, that sounds like...a drag. More fun to just go out and fuck shit up, right? Well, STFU, and consider what it's really going to take, to make a revolution.
Consider how much of a drag it is, for people to be getting burned out, to be drifting away, and demoralized by the dwindling numbers of mostly ill-informed, poorly-prepared new people we tend to pull into the struggle.
Consider how much of a drag it is, to have people among us who have been engaged in this struggle for 10, 20, 30 years and more, and a history going back over a hundred years, with little or no real success, in terms of actually really fundamentally, materially, challenging the root contradictions of capitalism.
What we need is less chaos, and more focus, both internally, collectively, within the movement, and in terms of how the general public (including potential "recruits") perceive us.
I have a proposal, for how to focus, such that we can seize and transform the power in our society, from an elitist monopoly corporate fascist dictatorship, into a genuinely anarchist, collective consensus for justice and peace, to save the planet, through mutual aid, cooperation, and solidarity, locally, regionally, "nationally", and world-wide...permanently, so we can surge forward into the 21st Century, and deal with whatever new problems and issues that are certain to arise, and whatever old throwback issues and problems may continue to raise their ugly heads.
It's simple. First we have to set aside the insane, obsessive, dogmatic, doctrinaire, rhetorical 100-year old catechisms of "revolutionary" theory and practice, and recognize that they do not, have not, and will not work, in the here and now.
Conditions have changed.
I'm not saying that all the history and seminal theoretical basis of our struggle should just be thrown out the window, or forgotten. What I'm saying is that conditions have changed, and we must adapt, to survive, and to evolve.
If you have seriously studied any of the seminal theorists and practitioners of revolution, you may recall, that despite many differences between them, one thing that they all warn about, is that we must not get hung up in dogmatic doctrinaire throwback rhetoric and practice...conditions change, and we must be willing and able to adapt.
Anarchy is not a religion, with a pat catechism. It's a social theory and practice, and society evolves, as conditions change, and thus our theory and practice must also, if we are to remain relevant, effective, and ultimately successful in our struggle.
OK, so then we need to consider exactly how society, and the conditions have changed, and what the implications of that may be for our theory and practice.
While there remain many vestiges of the old society embedded in the new, and nothing is absolute in life, especially in politics, where everything is more or less relative, there are some very significant differences now, from say, the 1700's, when most of our present roots were conceived.
For one thing, society is not just barely emerging from feudalism, and starting out with a completely new system of capitalism. This is no small matter. Capitalism has been around for a long time now, and is indeed more or less morphing into a much more advanced, mature, or, shall we say, moribund stage, of fascism.
As it's access to international markets becomes more and more curtailed, by international development and competition, capitalism is forced to turn within, and to devour it's own brood, here at home, to satisfy it's insatiable lust for profit.
For another thing, the masses are not primarily illiterate peasants, steeped in a thousand years of feudalism and superstition. Almost everyone knows how to read and write, and do basic math.
And there is a considerably more substantial inter-dependance among people now, who tend to be much more urban, or at least suburban, than isolated, self-sustaining rural communities. Indeed, even what remains of our rural population is much more interlocked, connected and educated than the old peasantry ever was.
And how about this: It no longer takes a year or more, for information to get from one side of the country to the other, and people themselves are also much more mobile.
Alright...back in the old days, under those conditions, perhaps our seminal theorists, of all stripes, including the most radical anarchists, can be forgiven for succumbing to the essentially bourgeois notion that the masses "needed" a substantial degree of "leadership" from an elite vanguard of dedicated revolutionary theorists, organizers and fighters.
Rather than debate that issue, let's just say that the conditions have now substantially changed. If an elite was ever necessary, or desirable, that is very much less the case now, in terms of the availability of, and the ability to use, information, ideas, and technique, of all kinds, among the general population, in terms of now being materially able to manage our own affairs, individually, or collectively, in the social sense.
Now, you can split hairs and nit pick, about how substantial that difference may be now, and whether or not it's sufficient, and you may not necessarily be wrong, per se, on any given point.
Media, education, and information flow in general, while much more widely available, is also pretty much totally controlled by the enemy, such that any potentials of that availability remain seriously compromised.
The state has not "withered" away, to give way to communism (ie: self-rule, in the social sense, by the masses...ie: democracy). Virtually all power remains in the hands of ruthless, vicious, self-perpetuating elites, who continue to coerce, weasel, lie and manipulate, every way they can, to considerable effect, controlling everything, pretty much, still.
But I would point out that while this aspect of present conditions may seem "the same" as it ever was, there are actually pretty substantial and significant differences.
For one thing, there never used to be any such long-term historical rhetorical ploy as "democracy", lol.
There was no pretense or prospect offered for any such thing, back then, in the 1700's, by the elites, to the masses.
It was just common, accepted knowledge that elites were "necessary", always had been, and always would be, and that such was even the "will of God", lol, largely based on a notion that people are just naturally born damned, and thus degenerate, venal and completely self absorbed, and thus could not be "trusted" with any responsibility for their own lives, let alone society, whatsoever.
"Only" a tiny percentage of the population, the more "enlightened", well educated elites, were considered, or allowed, to have sufficient skills, information or power to manage society, in order to "protect" and "shepherd" the masses, like sheep...to be fleeced and eaten by the privileged, super-rich elites, basically.
While those who still cling to such elitist perspectives to this day still tend to embrace such an "analysis", the fact is, the vast majority of people these days just aren't buying that jive, and expect and want to have considerably more say in matters, and, indeed, expect and want democracy, where we all decide what we need and want, democratically, not elites.
Now, you can argue and split hairs and parse the semantics all you want, and you may not be wrong, per se, about a very large percentage of the population being too stupid or deluded, and that "they" either want elite rule, really, or that "they" don't realize that they don't really have democracy...and you can point out that, in any case, we are a long way from actually having real democracy.
But I'm just saying, the rhetoric of the ruling classes, and the expectations and aspirations of the masses really are nowhere near the same as they used to be, back in the day when all of our revolutionary theory was developed.
Conditions in this regard have changed, very significantly and substantially, even if there may not have been an absolute and complete transformation in the reality, of how society actually operates...people do, in fact, tend to want and expect that change, in theory, ideally.
Such a theory, of democracy, and any attempt at implementing it in actual practice, was virtually unheard of, back in the day, which, of course, is what made communism (ie: social self rule, by the masses, ie: democracy, instead of elite rule), and the founding of the USA, such a revolutionary concept.
OK, this brings us to the need to recognize that the most fundamental revolutionary concept is NOT rioting in the streets, agitation, organizing among the grass roots, or revolutionary insurrection, etc. etc....those are all tactics, within a purposeful strategy...to achieve communism, ie: social self rule by the masses, democracy, instead of elite rule.
Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary concept.
Stay with me, now. You know I'm right, so far.
Everyone with a brain knows that what we now have in the US and similar "systems" elsewhere is a perverse co-optation of that theoretical concept of democracy.
It was used, rhetorically, opportunistically, to entice the masses to support the overthrow of feudalism, and to install a new Bourgeoisie capitalist class as the new elite. OK, that's obvious.
They never had any intention or desire to allow actual real democracy, which is clear from the polemics they published in the newspapers of the day, talking about how real democracy would be nothing but "mob rule" and "anarchy", like, chaos, lol.
But they convinced the masses that democracy was possible, and desirable, and the masses went along with the overthrow of feudalism, and, in fact, in some regards, conditions were somewhat improved in the process, to a degree.
What's not so obvious, it seems, to many revolutionaries, is that when the enemy is forced to change their mode of exercising power, to change their rhetoric, to maneuver and posture and weasel, to co-opt revolutionary demands, that is not necessarily a total and absolute defeat for the revolution. Tactically, it may be a defeat, in that it thwarts a real overthrow of power, at least temporarily.
But strategically, it sows the seed for further struggle, and ultimate revolutionary victory. The more the enemy is forced to try to co-opt the demands of the masses, the more opportunity arises, to press the contradictions, and to demand the real thing.
It indicates that the rhetoric, and the theoretical concepts they have so perversely "adopted" and, in reality, adapted to their own interests, have actually found such substantial resonance among the masses that they can no longer just ignore or suppress it, but that they have been forced, by the pressure of the masses, to change their tactics, to regroup, and to develop a whole new line and practice.
They can no longer rule, in the manner they did before. That's a critical moment, when revolution can advance.
Like now, with big oil companies suddenly starting to run major PR campaigns about how "green" they are, instead of spending those millions of dollars like they used to, slagging environmentalists, for example. Disgusting, isn't it?
But have you ever seen the old ads they used to run? Google up Mobil Oil's old ads, sometime, for a clue. Believe me, there's a world of difference, and it's real...not in their actual practice, so much...but in the fact that they have been forced to recognize that they can no longer rule in the manner that they did before.
Such developments can be a good thing, if we are poised to further press the contradictions.
Anyone involved in direct action in the streets knows that it can be a great tactical victory in battle, to throw the enemy off balance, and force them to regroup and re-tactize, even if it does not necessarily mean that you have won the war, strategically, yet, heh.
Alright, let's cut to the chase here. What I'm leading up to is the fact that we are now at a critical tipping point, in this struggle for democracy.
This is not the 1800's, in post feudal Europe, or 1917 Russia, heh, or even the US of the 1960's or 1970's. This is here, and now, in the USA, and something significant has happened.
Despite a 40 year, full court press monopoly corporate fascist commercial mass media propaganda blitz, 24/7, on all channels, public opinion has shifted in this country, to a very substantial degree.
The right is no longer politically correct in this country. Trust me, this is a change, and it's very substantial and significant, and it needs to be recognized, accepted, and embraced by all revolutionaries.
The American peoples are now staunchly against racism, sexism, eco-rape, murderous monopoly corporate rip off and imperialist warmongering profiteering, and we have been for quite awhile now, by an increasing majority, and that trend is accelerating.
Public opinion has reached a critical mass.
The right has barely managed to seize and hold the power these many years only by turning out their entire wing-nut constituency, and suppressing likely Democratic Party voters, by hook and by crook.
The right has no electoral reserves to call up. They are all in. And they just got their asses kicked. They have been soundly rejected by the masses.
Indeed, Obama stepped up and called for justice and peace, to save the planet, and unprecedented numbers of youth, and virtually all people of color rejected calls for electoral boycott and vote splitting, and "voted with their feet", marching to the polls to elect Obama, and on his coat tails, a Progressive Caucus majority, within a Democratic Majority in the Congress.
This is not about the authenticity of Obama, or of the Democrats, in terms of their real intentions or even their ability to deliver what they have promised.
It's about the hopes and expectations, the aspirations, of the masses. The just and legitimate demand of the masses, for actual, real democracy.
What I'm proposing is that this is a critical juncture, for pressing the contradictions of a bogus, contrived, bourgeois monopoly corporate commercial mass media "democracy", to the breaking point, or, a break-through point...toward actually seizing the power in this country.
The real politik of the present situation is that the Blue Dogs (conservative Democrats) and the Republicans retain sufficient plurality in Congress to block, delay and sabotage everything the Progressive Caucus majority tries to do, even despite a Democratic Majority.
This is causing a lot of frustration, angst and hubris, among the population, especially in the face of a burgeoning right wing full court press propaganda blitz to demonize and discredit Obama, the Democrats, and the left.
The right want to demoralize the electorate, to deny any hope for really changing anything.
The right are totally freaking out, because they know they are dead meat, politically, anymore. They are calling for political assassination, mass murder, and civil war.
They have lost it, and they know it.
I say it's now time to accept and follow the lead of the masses, and to engage the enemy in the one arena he hates and fears most, the electoral arena.
I think we should explicitly support the demand of the masses, for democracy, and commit to direct action, to fulfill it.
Some 100 million eligibles refused to vote in the last election, even for Obama, mainly out of disgust with the Blue Dogs, and the perception of "no difference" between the parties.
That is a very substantial, latent, mostly progressive electoral pool.
Conditions have changed, and it's time we took a serious look at calling off the electoral boycott, and vote splitting, to deal a final coup de grace to the right in this country.
Then, we can proceed to sort out the"moderates", "liberals" and "progressives", toward implementing actual real democracy.
It's time to finally, once and for all, press the contradictions of commercial mass media "democracy", by overwhelming it, swamping it, with an unprecedented, historic, interim election voter turnout in 2010, and to follow that up with more of the same in 2012.
The entire strategy of the right is to precipitate the usual low voter turnout for interim elections, in 2010, when half the Congress will be up for re-election or replacement. They are hoping that usual low voter turnout will allow them to regain enough seats in Congress to maintain or regain sufficient power to ensure that Obama and the Democrats "fail" to deliver on any of their promises, to suppress the prospect for any motion, however tentative and tenuous, toward democracy in this country.
Everybody can see it, everybody knows it.
What they are not expecting, is for us to call off the electoral boycott and splitting rhetoric, and to go down to our local Democratic Party headquarters, and take it over, by being the ones who show up to do the work, participate and vote in the meetings, etc., to mobilize the electorate, to purge the Blue Dogs and what remains of the Republicans from all levers of power.
I guarantee, we can do this. Virtually every party headquarters is starved for volunteers, committee members, and functionaries. We can take it over, and decide what the platform will be, and who the candidates will be.
Right now, they are mainly mobilizing for the local and state elections coming up in November. This is an excellent time to weasel our asses in there, and learn the ropes, and take it over, in preparation for the campaigns in 2010, which will be absolutely critical in tipping the balance of power in Congress, or not.
Brothers and sisters, this will do more than any amount of protests or demonstrations will accomplish, in terms of ending the wars, going green, getting health care for everyone, or resolving any of the many other issues we care so much about.
Nothing will be changed by electoral boycott or vote splitting.
We need a real change, to have any real hope for the future. And it's not just going to happen because we stomp our feet and scream. We have to make it happen, by engaging the enemy for real, by denying them the power.
Only then will we be in a material position to materially suppress and destroy capitalism and it's moribund form, fascism.
We have to seize the power in the most viable party, that the masses have chosen to support. We have to accept the leadership of the masses and follow them, to achieve the final victory. We have to take over the Democrats, for democracy.
I'm not saying it will be easy. One thing for sure, is that it won't be enough to merely have a "voice", or a "seat at the table", or even a majority. We need a super-majority of progressives, to completely take the motherfucker over, to the very greatest extent that we can, all the way up and down the ladders of power, from your local city council and county board of supervisors, to the state and national levels.
As long as the Chamber of Commerce is in charge of anything, we are all going to continue to be royally screwed, at any level. When we are in charge, then we get to choose who to hire for local police chief, city attorney, development officer, etc. and we will tell them what their marching orders are...and so it goes, at all levels.
We can change the whole thing, any way we want, if we are in charge.
We can't do jack shit, meanwhile, people,.
Aren't you tired of futile symbolic gestures of protest and defiance, that accomplish absolutely nothing?
Seize the Time!
Seize the Power!
All Power to the People!
All Out for 2010 and 2012!
Bring a Democratic Progressive Caucus Super-Majority!
Death to capitalism, as we know it, and it's moribund form, fascism!
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 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