Alright, alright, I haven't posted in a while, but I've had other crap to do and unfortunately blogging about anarchist strategy doesn't pay the gas bill. But in response to a request, and because I've been thinking about this for a while, I'd like to get a discussion going about the RNC, the DNC, and strategy. I can't write a lengthy essay of the quality the subject deserves right now and I'm too undecided about it anyway, so I'm going to ask some questions and I'll throw in my two cents in the comments section if a conversation gets going. Cool?
So the first thing on my mind when I heard about all the planning going on for these conventions was this: why are we getting back into the business of crashing summits? That's not a rhetorical question and I'm not rolling my eyes when I ask it, I really mean it. I just haven't heard an explanation of why people feel the summit thing is the way to go right now. That's not to say that it's not the way to go, and frankly I don't have an opinion either way right now, but I would like to hear a solid argument for it. So hopefully someone involved in the organizing can give us something work with here. Why these conventions? Why now?
Second, what's the goal? What I get from the material I've seen is that the goal is to "shut down" the conventions, which I suppose means "prevent them from happening." Am I right on that? If so, why? What's the intended effect? What happens if we succeed? In the more likely event of failure, what do we gain? Again, I'm not asking these questions in a negative or doubting way, I'm just posing them because I want to hear solid answers so we can talk about it.
Third, some of the organizers have made their strategy and even some specific tactics public, which to me feels like an innovation. Which bridges/roads/whatever to lockdown at used to be a tightly (or not so tightly) guarded secret, revealed in hushed tones at the last minute of a spokescouncil. They've gone the opposite route and published thousands of copies of their plans and distributed them all over. It'll be fascinating to see how this plays out (will we just be met by a wall of cops?) I don't know that I have a question really since we'll have to wait and see the effect of this, but I think it's noteworthy. Discuss amongst yourselves.
Fourth, the rhetoric surrounding the conventions has been very intentionally, um, Europeanized, for lack of a better word, by which I mean there seems to be a shift away from protest and towards rioting in the rhetoric. Sure, there's always been breakaway marches and black blocs, but this seems to be conceived of as more like a large-scale riot. Is it because all the liberals will be inside and we can finally party like we want to? Is it a change in the collective political thinking of the anarchist community in the U.S. away from class war politics and towards insurrectionary/post left thought? Can we actually pull off a large-scale riot in the U.S.?
Fifth, what alternative are we putting forth? What's the take-home message for people watching, whether at street level or through the lens of spectacle? If not Obama or McCain or Hilary, what? How? Why? And how are those questions being asked, what's the medium of delivery?
I think that's all I've got for now. Again, in no way am I asking these questions to bash the hard work of the organizers, whom I respect very much and I think they're doing great, valuable work; I just want to have a solid conversation about strategy. Let's talk about why we're doing this.
Ok, let's hear what you've got to say, and feel free to post your own questions as well.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
I would love to comment on this post, but I don't think I have the time to give it the consideration it deserves right now.
Regardless, to add to the list of questions...It was conveyed to me that at NCOR, workshop presenters or participants were not only critiquing the active response to the DNC/RNC, but were also suggesting that people should NOT attend. I wasn't there, but I'm wondering if people have reasons behind not just NOT going, but also why going would be detrimental to fomenting anarchy.
It's one thing to be like "Nah, I'm not going." It's another thing to say "You shouldn't go either."
-runrevolt
p.s. - pay the bills...advertise! ;)
The argument I heard for not going was essentially this: the current electoral cycle is drawing a lot of people into the political process and giving them the sense that they can change their conditions. We, as anarchists, know that electoral politics are a dead end, but these formerly apolitical people do not, so it would be more advantageous at this time to put forth a positive alternative than it would be to smash windows.
I see a lot of problems with this argument. The ones that come to mind immediately: it accepts the binary of creation/destruction which negates the "alternative" found in "destructive" acts, it assumes people will be turned off by "fucking shit up" which they may just have never believed was in the realm of the possible, it assumes that participation in capital "p" Politics will somehow lead to participation in the "politics" of the everyday, etc...So I wasn't terribly impressed with it. Again, my point with this post is not to say that these summit actions are a bad idea (or a good idea), I just think we should know exactly why we're doing this and why now; basically, how does this fit into a broader strategy?
I've actually debated putting advertising on this blog. It sounds tasteless given the subject matter, but the truth is that I would be able to post much more frequently and thoroughly if I made even a small amount of money from it. My main concerns are these: it will appear tasteless and will alienate readers, it is a security risk, and no one will click on them anyway. So I'm going to leave it up to you all. Google doesn't allow blog writers to explicitly tell readers that they can support the writer by clicking on the ads, so I won't do that. If you think I should have them and you think it will be worth my while, I will put them up. Post your thoughts here.
one reason for doing the summit thing is that we've had 5 years of anti-war marches, and the RNC will show an alternative way of protesting to people, a more empowering one in my opinion. it will be the first time a seattle-style protest framework will be used in the anti-bush/war movement.
as for "showing people an alternative," i think that is something needed much more at the DNC than RNC. then there'ss the old argument: what do you replace cancer with? that argument is more abviously apparent at the RNC and will be readily accepted i think in response to the RNC, the DNC, however, especially with all the excited obama people, it will be more important to have a more thorough critique and perhaps even some alternative.
and as for insurrecctionary rhetoric, i think it's just because of who the people are who happen to be organizing it. and i don't think it is that apparent in the RNC stuff at least. haven't read much from the denver people b/c i'm not going there.
more thoughts later...
Some extemporaneous thoughts…
The most primitive—but not necessarily wrong-headed—argument for big anarchist-organized DNC/RNC protests is that it's been half a decade since the last major anarchist-organized mass mobilization, and it's good to have them every once in a while so we maintain visibility outside towns where we have a lot of local activity. Summit-hopping is draining, but the occasional major action can be reinvigorating.
The liberal anti-war movement, which replaced the anti-capitalist movement (to the glee of authoritarian communists, etc.) in the public eye between 2001 and 2003, has come to a close—as an obvious failure. Many of those who participated in it sincerely must be frustrated with it and recognize its limitations; indeed, there seems to be a lot of interest in the anarchist anti-RNC organizing among older anti-war people in the midwest. That in itself offers an opportunity—and in fact, in the case of the RNC, it seems that anarchists are involved explicitly in every level of the organizing in a way we haven't seen since the exciting FTAA protests in Quebec, April 2001.
This is the time that the political machine, having lost a lot of popular faith during the Bush years, will attempt to recapture public attention through an electoral spectacle. Anarchists are, obviously, the only ones poised to call bullshit on this, and we should not miss the opportunity. We may not persuade everyone to become anarchists in 2008, but if we can re-enter the public eye as the ones who saw it coming, when the inevitable disillusionment sets in following the election, our take on things will be visible as an attractive alternative.
Right now we still have—and will never have again—the outrage arising from the Iraq war to draw on in mobilizing people. After this election, it will be a moot point, part of history. If we play our cards right at this historical juncture, we can draw on the frustration of those who feel betrayed not only by Bush but also by the Democrats who have acted as his accomplices and by the liberal anti-war movement that channeled dissent into a powerless dead end.
There are analogues to this anti-war approach regarding other single issues, such as immigration and global warming. Again, the Democrats will attempt to frame themselves as the ones who will save the world from climate change, and we should be on the scene from the get-go as the real opposition to their false opposition. The conventions are a pretty good opportunity to show that somebody is worked up enough about things to actually throw down: so much attention will be focused on the two host cities, both of whom incidentally want to maintain reputations as liberal havens, that basically all we have to do is force the police to use tear gas and we win worldwide free publicity.
There are a lot more complications to this—but I’ll stop here, as space is tight. Suffice it to say I also see drawbacks to the conventions as a focus, but given the situation I think our best bet is to try this, since we don’t have any other obvious options on the table. I’ll end by saying, in regard to the one presenter at NCOR, that if you’re jealous of Obama’s ability to hypnotize people through the media but shrug off a nationwide grass-roots anarchist mobilization, you need to check your priorities as an anarchist.
Why are we getting back into the business of crashing summits? Why these conventions? Why now?
First, I think there is nothing inherently problematic with protesting summits. The problem was when we were exclusively and somewhat unthinkingly protesting summits. Looking at it from a dual-power framework (in which we build what we want to see while throwing a wrench in the machine, so to speak) the summit hopping that we saw in the 5 years after Seattle was only one prong of a two prong approach, and so much energy and resources were going into it that it was detracting from the community building. On the other hand, the last five years has seen an almost exclusive focus on the community building prong which has, I think, detracted from our ability to create a ruckus and raise awareness of issues on a larger scale.
So, to defend idea of protesting summits, I think there are a number of positive things that come out of big convergences. 1) Networks- as much or more than bookfairs, conferences, and the like, protest convergences are great ways to build networks beyond our communities. These informal networks help us feel connected and part of something big which is key to preventing burn out, and also spread ideas in ways the internet never will be able to. There are also the more formal networks that arise like Indymedia, which compliment our community building well. These networks are valuable resources in times of crisis. For example, it was the networks built during the ’99-’04 period that were able to spread the call for solidarity from New Orleans after Katrina which got Common Ground going. 2) Skillz- A number of the skillz we learn from protests are directly transferable to our community building. For example street medics that go from flushing out tear gas to opening medical clinics or legal observers that go from cop watching at protests to cop watching in their ‘hoods. 3) Imagination- I think this might be the most important aspect. Some people’s imaginations are captured by food coops, some people are attracted to music, theater, or puppets, and other people are drawn to barricades and throwing tear gas back at the cops. I think we do ourselves a disservice by abdicating the power of protest to the stifling ranks of communists and liberals. People that are pissed about the status quo are going to be drawn to the groups that are on the front lines of protest. If all they find is the RCP front groups and Liberal electoral groups, they will either be folded into that mix or be forever turned off of activism. If we are going to keep bringing in the angry youth element into our larger movement, we need to be visible on the front lines of contesting the status quo, and large national convergences are a powerful tool in that realm. 4) Morale- A successful national action goes a long way to boosting morale and bringing energy into our movement. Unsuccessful actions on the other hand…
So, my basic point is that large protests are powerful tools when the compliment (and don’t take the place of) our other organizing. To address more specifically why the RNC/DNC, I can’t speak for everyone, but there are a few things I see. Most importantly they are causes that will draw a wide variety of people. If we want to be relevant to a larger population, the RNC is much better for finding common cause and building alliances than say an obscure biotech convention or something. The RNC touches on most every issue we can imagine so it gives a lot of room and versatility for organizing and networking and critiquing. In addition to the diversity of people it will bring, the RNC will bring a shit load of people which means we can be directly visible to more people, as well as having the participation/crowd cover to carry out what ever actions we deem appropriate.
Second, what's the goal? What I get from the material I've seen is that the goal is to "shut down" the conventions, which I suppose means "prevent them from happening." Am I right on that? If so, why? What's the intended effect? What happens if we succeed? In the more likely event of failure, what do we gain?
If we succeed, it is a demonstration of our power to organize and carry out something big and spectacular. Nothing begets success like success. It is also a powerful message about how widespread opposition to the Republican machine is. Even if they don’t admit it, the message is there plain as day. What happened when we shut down the WTO? Capitalism went on, but our movement definitely also surged. If we don’t shut it down, there are still the potential gains I laid out above.
Third, some of the organizers have made their strategy and even some specific tactics public, which to me feels like an innovation.
I think it’s awesome, because it’s evidence of definite strategizing, which is a lot more than I can say about a lot of earlier protests. It moves us away from protest for the sake of protest, or worse protest this one because we protested that one, and moves us toward selective protest for a definite purpose.
In regards to the rhetoric of rioting:
Is it because all the liberals will be inside and we can finally party like we want to?
This won’t be the case at the RNC which I feel will be the bigger and more rambunctious of the two actions. I think there it has more to do with the level of anger and frustration across demographics with the current regime and challenging people to move in a more radical direction. We’ll see how it works.
Is it a change in the collective political thinking of the anarchist community in the U.S. away from class war politics and towards insurrectionary/post left thought?
I don’t think so. I think there is actually less of the insurrectionary element than in years past, but maybe that’s just where I live.
Can we actually pull off a large-scale riot in the U.S.?
I hope so.
Fifth, what alternative are we putting forth? What's the take-home message for people watching, whether at street level or through the lens of spectacle? If not Obama or McCain or Hilary, what? How? Why? And how are those questions being asked, what's the medium of delivery?
This is a great question that I think needs more thought and discussion before the actions. I think that the point of the protests is to say “Hey, there is more to the world than this bullshit,” but only our actual organizing at home will really present our alternatives. People should walk into their local clinics/bike collectives/community gardens/etc. in September and think to themselves “So this is the alternative those hooligans on TV were talking about.” The challenge, I think, is to connect the protests to our larger organizing efforts.
"A crowd is easier to control than an individual. A crowd has a common purpose. The purpose of the individual is always in question."
-Steven Soderbergh's Kafka
It seems the intention behind these demonstrations is to not actually stop anything from happening but to affect the public so that the given movement might have the capability of building in order to achieve something extraordinary. The focus is on involving the populace more than reaching an actual objective. History has made it apparent that this strategy is ineffective.
Hoping that these demonstrations might bring in new members is a fruitless endeavor being seriously flawed. This same idea is what I believe extinguished the various social upheavals of the 60's and 70's. They genuinely believed that by the actions of many they might rejuvenated the public leading them to social revolution. These revolutionaries failed due to their dependence on the support of the populace. The idea that change can only be brought about by the support of a large scale movement could possibly be the defining flaw in general anarchist theory.
I pose a new question: Why does the Anarchist milieu stay confined to methods developed a hundred years ago and not adapted to current times?
"These revolutionaries failed due to their dependence on the support of the populace"? Uh, do you know about all the situations in which revolutionaries failed because they tried to sidestep the matter of popular support? For example, the weather underground, the Red Brigades in Italy, etc. I fear your case is not persuasively made--I can hardly understand what you're trying to suggest--and you certainly don't seem to be proffering any other approaches. Nothing is more tiresome than those who say what exists is tired without proposing something else.
As for the DNC/RNC, it would be better if there was a mobilization that involved us seizing some resource that would enable us to sustain ourselves as a social body--look at the Ungdomshuset riots in Denmark for an example. However, in the absence of such a mobilization, we should make do with what we have here, and it could be worse--especially the anti-RNC organizing really seems like the most together organizing in seven years. Like in karate, we should "aim beyond the brick," too, thinking now about what to do with whatever energy comes after this mobilization... maybe that can be oriented more towards something that sustains us, rather than confrontation for its own sake.
As someone above pointed out, though, major mass mobilizations themselves can be reinvigorating and even give rise to new organs of self-sustenance. Indymedia, for example, came out of the WTO protests.
I think these are very good responses so far, with the exception of the response before last, which I consider a borderline troll job. I chose not to delete it only because the response above got here before I could and makes an important point about popular support.
I'm operating on the assumption that almost all tactics have their time and place, so let's try to keep comments specific to the RNC/DNC, rather than debating the merits of summit crashing in general. Also, I want to encourage everyone to please adopt a handle (e.g. "lobsterbeard", "runrevolt") for the sake easy reference.
So far, I find many of these arguments persuasive. Especially compelling to me is the notion that it is important to register our dissatisfaction now, while hope is high and the would-be saviors' halos shine brightest, so that when the inevitable alienation sets in we've already established our dissent. Ironically, this approach is what has given Obama so much credibility as an anti-war candidate, and inversely, the strategy of riding whatever wave happens to be cresting has made Clinton appear disingenuous. I think following Clinton's approach would have the same effect on us.
Also, I want to second cornelius's last point, and add (as if it needs to be said) that probably the greatest fault of the anarchist community is its inability to incorporate and retain new individuals. That subject alone deserves a full article, which I'll write at some point, but let me go on the record saying that unless anarchists do a better job of making people feel welcome and understanding that diversity of all kinds is needed and wanted, whatever momentum gained from this summer's actions will be quickly squandered, turning the whole beautiful strategy into yet another source of cynicism. If these actions do result in the arrival of many newcomers to the anarchist community, it is essential that the subcultural arrogance be checked at the door. Obviously that's just the tip of the whole malignant iceberg, but if that's all we do, we can at least take one step towards becoming a truly relevant and dangerous community instead of a loose network of fashion critics.
Let's keep this going.
i'm "more thoughts later..." again:
it would be really cool if we could come up with some type of project like indymedia (i.e.- easily replicatable, easy to get involved with, promotes social change) that people can start one of at the NC protests to show everyone what it is and how it works and then everyone can go back to their towns and begin to replicate it, much like what happened with indymedia.
maybe there isn't something like this that is left, perhaps all the memes like this (indymedia, Food Not Bombs, critical mass) have already been thought of and are out there, but i bet some creative people could possibly come up with something. and i think it would be a point of convergence for people in towns across the US after the NC protests for something to get involved with that relates to the inspiration they found in the NC protests and allows the ability to turn that inspiration into forward momentum on a project.
i can't really come up with any good ideas for groups that would have the components of an indymedia/FNB off the top of my head....maybe some type of housing action groups that squat foreclosed homes/defend people from eviction??? the thing is with that though, that i think part of the accessability of IMC/FNB is that they don't involve potential arrest most of the time. that may also be a necessary component....
new name:
-yaro
Really quickly before I get to my point: I apologize. I wrote that post three stories up while I was at work. This is the only blog that I routinely read and I'll try to stick to the point.
I am a bit confused with the overall strategy regarding the RNC and DNC summits. So far the ideas presented seem to be mimics of old ideas and any novice in military history could tell you this hasn't always produced the best results. Although I do believe that each tactic has its time and place, I believe there is also a time for adapting. This was what I had originally meant but apparently made myself sound like a freakin troll.
Well alright, I have an idea. Since its apparent I feel demonstrations are a distraction why not use them as such. When security is dispatched in one concentrated area, why not use this weakness as a strength and focus on other objectives. I do believe this would be a perfect time to show our dissatisfaction but I've witnessed the potential of these summits often get lost in the monotony of activism. What I hope to see is the use of different tactics when large groups are involved such as the French riots for example.
In short, I believe the RNC and DNC would be a great opportunity to test new strategies.
-B
In response to 'B', I whole-heartedly agree with the idea of using the conventions as distractions. I have been involved in organizing for one of the NCs this round and one of the things I've been most excited by is the prospect of exploiting the fact there's going to be a relative vacuum in much of the area outside the immediate vicinity of the convention. For example, there's a glut of worthy targets for all kinds of covert actions in Minneapolis that the police are going to have a very hard time responding to.
I'm also excited at the potential for an explosion of rage and dissatisfaction in the streets of both of these conventions, far beyond a declared goal of 'shutting it down', which in my opinion is neither feasible nor desirable. I would be interested to hear input on working to create conditions more conducive to a large-scale riot erupting.
-eleftherios
I posted above as "some extemporaneous thoughts." Here are some more, in response to Eleftherios.
It seems to me that the precondition for anything happening along the lines of what you're describing will be the police being focused on something in advance and having their hands full. Blockading strikes me as fitting the bill for that; it might also open up some "liberated zones."
Regarding shutting down the convention, I can understand doubting whether it is feasible, but do you really think that's not desirable? Really? Perhaps we're on totally different pages, but I think that would be pretty exciting... and given that literally thousands of people have to make it into the convention center, I think it's much more plausible than shutting down, say, a G8 summit.
But even setting aside the plausibility question for a minute, I'd argue that a good strategy, at this historical juncture, would be one that succeeds even if it fails. That is, in this situation, one that creates a noteworthy clash even if it doesn't achieve its express purpose entirely, and also that perhaps creates the opportunity for other things to happen.
Rowdy types (or those who like to talk tough, at least) have been talking about making such "other things" happen in the US for years, and rarely ever follow through, so that's not something to depend on. But again--nothing would enable that more effectively than successful blockades in at least some areas of St. Paul. Perhaps my biggest frustration with insurrectionist types in the US is that they tend to brush off the kinds of organizing, etc. that create the necessary preconditions for the stuff they want to do. Counterintuitive as it may seem, I'd argue that those who want to see crazy things happen at the RNC should focus first on making sure successful blockading can occur. If it does, we can expect a lot more to occur, organically if not through planning. If it doesn't occur--especially after so much talk about it--my guess would be that it's unlikely something else exciting will occur instead.
But I think if enough people go, and enough of them think hard about what they could do to hold ground, something exciting is bound to happen.
In response to "B": Thank you for clarifying your thoughts. There are plenty of valid critiques along the lines of what you were originally suggesting, I just think it's important to make them in a way that is neither doctrinaire nor unnecessarily inflammatory. In response to some of your points, I'd suggest checking out the "anti-mass" zine if you haven't already. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. It can found here: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/blackchip/antimass.htm
In response to "some extemporaneous thoughts", the point you make about barricade tactics seems spot on to me. One need look no farther than Seattle for an example of such symbiotic actions. Unfortunately, the fact that "non-violent" obstructionary tactics created the space for property destruction became the basis for a damaging split in the global justice movement: doctrinaire pacifists vs. ardent property destroyers. The two positions quickly hardened into caricatures, with the pacifists becoming protest cops and the ardent property destroyers refusing to acknowledge that such tactics aren't appropriate for every situation. Preventing such a split from developing in the aftermath of the RNC/DNC will be vital. I think the honest discussion of tactics that is taking place in the build-up will help innoculate against such a rift, but it's still something to be aware of.
At this point I have more questions than suggestions, so I'm hoping not to come off as a troll.
There's a lot of talk about creating a 'large scale riot'. I'm not criticizing or dismissing the idea, but I'd like to know what this would entail, and how would it help to foment, encourage and spread anarchist ideas and practice. I have no problem with smashing corporate windows and burning cop cars, but I feel like a lot of people will be left wondering how rioting fits in to our goal of building autonomous communities.
I feel like there are some POTENTIALLY conflicting ideas here; on the one hand, we want popular support and to present and inspire viable alternatives to hierarchical society - to simplify that, we want to make friends, because the more friends we have, the easier it is to make that dream come to life. On the other hand, we're smashing windows and fighting cops, which may be an instant turnoff to many people who see the story on the news because it doesn't surprise them - it reaffirms the 'mainstream' idea that anarchy = "mindless" violence and destruction.
Now, WE know that that isn't the case; at least for me, the goal is not to create a community that is just perpetual rioting. We know that rioting is a means... I think that what's important here is answering the question that I predict will crop up, which is, a means to what end, if any?
I think that the key here is going to be proving that these tactics serve a purpose. The key is making sure our riots come with the message that we all take for granted, but most people don't realize - that a riot can actually be a powerful example of autonomous, collective action that can get you what you need. Direct action gets the goods. We want people to see the riots as an example of the power, freedom, and possibilities that collective action holds, and so perhaps we can express this by demonstrating how this power can be useful in other communities not yet exposed to these ideas.
Someone else mentioned the Ungdomhuset riots, and how they were used to try to reach concrete goals of defending and creating permanently liberated buildings. I think that we can take this further, into the possibility of using our collective power to free resources, buildings, yes, but also food or other supplies, which could be distributed to people and neighborhoods not yet involved who might even desperately need those resources being hoarded by the corporations. I'm sure there are better examples of what could be done, but that's what came to mind.
Another thought: The May '68 uprising in Paris and the Ungdomhuset riots had something in common that I think may be very important - the isolated radical youth found ways to link their struggle and their goals to the struggles of other, more general groups who may not yet realize the connection they have to us, such as other groups adversely affected by capitalism and the state. How can we use the DNC/RNC to link our struggles and our tactics to our potential allies? Can we do this before the events happen? What will it take to get our potential allies into the streets with us?
What would it take for our actions to spark strikes, riots, walkouts, etc? Is this a realistic or helpful goal to have?
Sorry for all the questions, I'm a youngster, and relatively new to all this...
solely my own opinion
i believe that if full-scale riots do take place then it is imperative to have similar if smaller actions continuously. otherwise the youth of today will feel that actions like those involve other people not them even if they are willing to join in. and while yes the media will try to connect it with the actions of yesteryear specifically the Chicago 10 we must not allow them to marginalize it to only happening at centers of authority every few years
why do we have to use the same outmoded tactics we've been using during and since this whole past century of miserable failure?
since an explosion creative autonomous expression is the only thing that will topple the rot and death of capitalist, government-addicted civilization, why shouldn't we come up with some?
organized anarchist intervention in any and every gathering encountered in the realm of everyday life (and the many unexpected moments that already mar the clean facade of its mind numbing routine) to make them radically human is far more effective than just intervening in a few select congresses of capitalist business boys playing politico. "Humanity's meeting with itself" obviously can't happen if we're all drowned out by the noise of some snob-dominated meeting or anonymized in some 'vanguard'-organized protest. create new kinds of gatherings. only really creatively executed, spontaneous, and free interaction with others in any and every situation, can do the trick.
-J
http://situationist.gq.nu
as for your last post, here's a comic strip i made and passed out to the striking hollywood writers.
http://anarcomix.angelfire.com
(click hollywood writers' strike.)
a lot of this sounds familiar from the 2004 convention protest buildup period, which panned out most disappointingly, at least from my perspective. although specific instances may arise to create ungovernable situations, which is indeed valuable, the fact remains beneath all of this that "we" are reacting within the context of a political framework set up without us and against us. the liberals and leftists, as usual, are probably not going to join any riots, or be impressed with the fuzzy, diluted, nonthreatening ecumenical "anarchism" that so many people always want to peddle to them. if one thing needs to be drawn from the weather underground/red brigades example it is that effective insurrectionary strategies do not come from the left wing of the propertied class but from the uncontrollable raged of the undesired and exploited.
i dont know... i liked the idea someone raised of trying to seize a squat (echoes of casa del sol?). the important thing, if anything to get across to people, i think, is that anarchy is NOT just some thing where people go around protesting shit. i dont think there is any problem with destructive resistance and if it alienates people then it does so for good reason. but it must be pushed beyond the bounds of such ceremonial events.
also i wanted to know if youd been caught up on or had anything to say about the spreading unrest over prices increases in various parts of the "third world" ive been posting about on bombs and shields? there was also a big demo about inflation in cambodia and probably some other stuff i missed because it didnt get too violent...
sorry, dont know if it was clear but i meant that resistance, overtly destructive or not, must be pushed beyond the bounds of such ceremonial events. you wouldnt believe i used to be paid to be a proofreader considering how bad i am at doing it to my own writing.
omg... theres also this
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=105800
yes, moving beyond the bounds of spectacularized protest to actual resistance (which always seems to occur as, at least partially, the liberation of space) is something we'd all like to see happen. we should look at examples of when it's happened and how.
the most recent large example is oaxaca. they turned a protest of the teachers into a citywide rebellion. how? they shut down the media BS machine and told their own stories of brutality to people who were already sympathetic.
at the RNC, minneapolis is a liberal (sympathetic) city for the most part. while only a fraction of the people who live there will come out to protest the RNC, if there is over-the-top police brutality, and it can be conveyed to people and the mass media lie-machine can be compromised, there is a decent chance of a protest becoming a larger rebellion. it won't last of course, but it is something that could happen for a small amount of time.
perhaps also if, as in seattle at the WTO, the protest gets pushed into a neighborhood (perhaps we should look at nearby neighborhoods that might be most sympathetic, in order to place "red zone" near it or to have it as the area people are told to retreat to) we should think about which nieghborhood woould be most sympathetic, and try to create a liberated zone that is a neighborhood.
this is how we move from protest to resistance: space! and the participation of the people who already live in those spaces (neighborhoods, cities, counties, states, etc...). to get the participation of locals, we should look strategically at which neighborhoods have the most potential. and we should then focus on having a dialogue beforehand with those localities. and getting our point of view about the police response to that neighborhood specifically and massively.
real hopes for beyond protest to resistace at the RNC just won't work long term because the folks from around the US will go home at some point. but a TAZ of liberated space beyond a protest is possible for a short time. that's the most we can hope for i think.
-yaro
m-
i'd also agree with your idea of seizing a squat. doing it in a favorable neighborhood to moving beyond protest to revolt would be strategically best i think, relating to my points above about how to go beyond protest.
Handle: mrsituationist
If we are going to successfully bring in the number of youth needed to really crash the convention with a combo of blockades and rioting, we will need to draw some big name artists to come play at the RNC.
I was at the G8 for a week, and seriously it was like a weeklong woodstock, every night there at my camp international DJs came and spun everyday, you could see the locals come flock into the camp and were exposed to a completely different reality of resistance than the one given to them by the media.
We need to similarly appeal to youth in America whose only concept of protest is the media creation of the the well intentioned but awkward and misguided protest/rioter.
What will it take? We need Public enemy to show up, we need Chamillionaire to fly in, we need RATM to play, and we need Radiohead and Green Day to come in and play for 500k protesters. People already pay 200 dollars for tickets to go see these groups at rock festivals, they will come out for a free show in St. paul if thats where shit is going down. Obviously most of those who would come in for the show aren't explicitly one ism or another, but having Chuck D tell people about a rally later that night or the next morning, or even better having people rush the stage and talk about comrades getting shit done will create a revolutionary reality for a whole range of people who have only been exposed to productive revolution through history books (we all experience "individual" revolution nearly everyday when we shoplift in secret, smoke a joint, cheat on a test etc.).
I'm going to make it a point at this next SDS national conference to create an outreach committee to get some big names for the RNC protest as well. The biggest thing we have to remember about these conversations is that the key to revolution is actually committing your time to them. Plenty of people talk about starting up collectives, coops, or whatever but never take the personal risks or make the investments necessary to attempt them.
peace from chicago
Handle: Xcited
So im going to briefly respond to a couple of things. First, LobsterBeard's last post: You mentioned a great point on the concern for post-action divisiveness and denunciations. One of the things which I find most exciting about the RNC is the so called St Paul Principles (http://www.nornc.org/st-paul-principles/) which facilitate the necessary solidarity between participants. Being less concerned with liberal denunciations means that radicals can place more energy in their actual plans and imagery. Check’m out, they are pretty cool
Now, to mrsituationist:
I completely agree with your point about music. RATM played @ the 2000 DNC in L.A. perhaps we can snag them for this one. Anything that makes the protests creative/ fun will be beneficial to everyone except cops and politicians. However, it’s important that these events are actually there to address the RNC and facilitate protests-NOT draw people away from them. In regards to last year's G8 protests a group called 'Move Against G8' organized a huge concert (10,000+) in the end-point of the demonstrations. When the cops started using the water-cannons at the edge of the crowd to disperse people someone from Move Against G8 got on the MIC and announced: "the cops are saying they are going to arrest anyone who is wet (from the water cannon)… that means we all must dance ourselves wet with sweat- the cops cant arrest all of us!" this kind of solidarity would be amazing for the RNC
disagree that smoking weed is revolutionary, but let us know when youve booked radiohead, green day etc. (didnt ratm break up?)
Lots of interesting points are floating around here. Being in Denver, I'll speak a bit to some of the thinking going on here as to "Why the DNC?"-
1) Building alliances, esp. ones that should be happening but might not be there are really exciting. Something that will be released soon is some of the collaboration we're doing with Chicano, Latino and immigrant rights groups. We're really working to have various groups come out to one another's events. The growing collaboration between climate justice folks and anti-war activists is one we want to help grow, another one is links between farmworker struggles and fair food/sustainable farming/permaculture movements, also building alliances between poc political prisoners and eco-defenders. All of this we're focusing on in the organizing leading up to the DNC and how we're framing the various actions
2) Bringing a more rowdier, exciting tone to things- The DNC protests will for sure have an excitingly rowdy tone I think. This is because the main logistical group is explicitly radical and d.a. friendly. Unlike many mass mobilizations where things get tripped up by dogmatic liberals, those folks are generally out of the picture for the DNC or at least are not the main organizers. It's been made clear that anarchists are not only welcome at the mass events being organized, but invited to be a visible presence and help shape the messaging and tone.
3) Offering the alternatives- While I find the name annoying personally, there will be an ongoing Festival of Democracy with some big names (Zach de la Rocha and possibly RATM if they can stay on good terms, Michael Franti, The Coup, etc.) that will bring large crowds that could then be exposed to radical ideas. There will also be ongoing workshops and caucus type gatherings for folks to share successes and failures in their ongoing work. The idea is then to have people come back to Denver and reflect on what happened over the course of the year and share again what worked and what didn't. We're then pushing to have the US Social Forum come in 2010 to continue that dialog further. We'll see if that pans out.
4)Organizing that lasts beyond the convention- During the DNC there will be a free medical clinic operating 24/7 the entire week for people (not a street medic tent, but an off site place for anyone) that we're trying to organize so that it will be able to continue in some form after August. We'll also have a free legal clinic that will be offering information on police brutality, immigration law and rights, etc. before, during and once again hopefully continue on after the convention in some manner.
We're going through a bit of a transition right now in the original Disrupt the DNC! proposal that was put out there so I'll hold off on speaking to that too much until some things pan out a bit more. In the meantime, folks can keep up with what's happening on the DNC end of things at dncdisruption08.org
-strongwindsahead
I just wanted to let you all know something as some one in Australia.
We hear about your big successes. Seattle had a ripple effect which resulted in our own protest, S11 (what are the odds of it being that day?). But we don't hear about your losses, it just doesn’t get reported and no really hears about it. Just something to consider. If you make a big splash at the DNC it’ll ripple around the globe. If it fizzles, then it’s not so much of problem. But, obviously you’ve got to consider the local impact too.
Is the Center done with this blog?
Yes for sure, at this point the only benefit I see to these large mobilizations is hopefully in the infrastructure and networks they leave behind for ongoing projects - be they squats, phone lists, legal teams, health clinics, coalitions between unlikely groups, new comrades, etc
A shame that it takes the promise of a spectacle for the riotporn folks to getting down to the nitty gritty of organizing a bunch of shit, but it often does, for better or worse.
I think we need to start talking more seriously about burnout and sustainability for the long haul - even here in St Louis, where we have multiple anarchist collective houses, an anarchist bakery, an urban farm, plenty of liberated squats and gardens, a radical community center, etc -- in sum a lot more of what I see as exciting alternatives and "root-building" opportunities for creating the deep relationships with each other and the earth that will sustain us in the times ahead - burnout is a vicious monster that eats radicals up and spits them out.
I have been involved in a number of months-long organizing leadups to major summit/convergence protests and by the time it was over there were whole swatha of radicals that were totally and utterly exhausted and fried and literally all of the above mentioned possibilities for long-term infrastructure and organizing growth collapsed because people just had no energy in the few months afterwards
Hey !!! very nice blog!! i'll add it.
Greetings from Argentina.
VIVA LA ANARKIA!!!
Everybody here should check out ANTI-VOTE.com. It is about organizing a systematic boycott of this year's election.
I am watching the RNC coverage Sept.3, 2008, on FOX, and an arrested Journalist is getting all the play time in the 'Great Revolt'.
FOX covers the Anarchist Pussy theatrics about 1 time each six hours, just as a break from the politics and to provide local flavor, like they are reviewing a local Pizza Shop or something.... All that has been accomplished is shattering bus window glass on an 80 year old man and some tossing of bleach. WOW - YOU GUYS ARE REGULAR WRECKERS FROM HELL - (NOT!).
All you bad asses seem to be borderline party animals and have all the collective rhetoric and reason of a class of 4th graders on a modified panty raid.
Go back to your jobs and practice saying "You want fries with that?"
Snot-nosed idealists. Grow Up.
That last comment was pretty stupid, eh?
Haha, 'snot-nosed idealists'. Well, cop, I'm thinking there's gonna be a lot more radical idealists for you to deal with after this.
But I want to hear from the folks who were on the ground in St. Paul.
Post a Comment