Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Breaking Free of the Protest Mentality
Protestors are in the classic role of "protestors", people with no real power over their lives so they must demand it from the ruling class. Demonstrations also point to a lack of creativity; the only thing we can come up with is playing the song and dance of our rulers. How much longer will these protests go on for? If we could only get a few more tens of thousands to protest, will we be successful in overthrowing capitalism, the state and wage-slavery? Why do the state, capitalism and wage-slavery exist, why do the governments of the U.S. and Israel do what they do, and what are we actually going to do about it?
On the media's coverage of the Washington DC protests against the IMF and Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, speeches were given by various activist and progressive groups, such as Palestinian and African-American nationalist groups, the AFL-CIO, the International Action Center (IAC), and A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now To Stop War And End Racism). Both IAC And A.N.S.W.E.R. are Stalinist front groups for the Workers World Party, which supports the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 and the Soviet invasions of Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968. Many of the speakers chanted "Free, Free Palestine", held portraits of Yasser Arafat, and the audience began repeating the chants with fervor and enthusiasm. The rhetoric in the speeches was typical Leftist drivel, entirely non-rational and endemic of mob mentality, ingrained authoritarian mindsets, and the complete absence of rational discussion and argumentation, critical thinking skills, and non-violent communication.
A "co-leader" of the IAC made the statement that "this is the largest march in U.S. history". What this statement was intended to convey, what effect another mass demonstration would have, and what they actually wanted were questions to be evaded. Sure, the Israeli army is terrorizing the region and committing genocide against the Palestinian people, and the U.S. government is an authoritarian war machine which routinely massacres, represses, brutalizes, imprisons, tortures, oppresses, exploits and starves people all over the globe - there is no question about that. This is nothing new, and has been going on for many decades.
But it seems that if a "movement" is going to be built, it needs a rational, comprehensive, holistic analysis of the current situation, and a fleshed-out, detailed, practical strategy to achieve whatever it is that happens to be its goals. The means must be consistent with the ends. This analysis and strategy would give direction to a movement and would act as a vehicle for personal and social transformation. What is alarming is the complete lack of any serious analysis or strategy, or even any concern over a lack of analysis or strategy, and the crowd's willingness, even eagerness to shout slogans, hold signs, and regurgitate the rhetoric of the speakers.
Estimates for this march were put at 10-15,000 by the mainstream media and 75-100,000 by the independent media (both of whom exaggerate numbers to serve their particular agenda). Regardless, the march was in the tens of thousands. It seems that 50,000 people would be able to gather together and deliberate on a grassroots level, based on free association, through networks of affinity groups and spokes-councils, their strategic and organizational plan of action. Instead, those same 50,000 people chose to walk around as an amorphous mass, chanting, holding signs, letting the government know how bad and inhuman it is and how it should stop funding murderous states, and basically putting themselves in a humiliating position of powerlessness.
Protestors are in the classic role of "protestors", people with no real power over their lives so they must demand it from the ruling class. Demonstrations also point to a lack of creativity; the only thing we can come up with is playing the song and dance of our rulers. How much longer will these protests go on for? If we could only get a few more tens of thousands to protest, will we be successful in overthrowing capitalism, the state and wage-slavery? Why do the state, capitalism and wage-slavery exist, why do the governments of the U.S. and Israel do what they do, and what are we actually going to do about it?
One of the speakers, from a Muslim rights group, appealed to President Bush to warn Ariel Sharon that if he doesn't stop his war crimes, then immediate action will be taken. It is unbearably painful to witness such utter naivety. It is quite apparent that genocide and "war crimes" are normal functions of any state, that they are not doing anything irresponsible. The state will do anything to maintain its power, whether legal or illegal. Leftists and progressives point out that Israel has violated the Geneva Convention, and that their activity is "illegal". By accepting the false dichotomy of "legal"/"illegal" we are accepting their frame of reference and their world-view. We are viewing the situation from a liberal, idealistic perspective, of how the state is supposed to behave. Radicals and revolutionaries over a hundred years ago recognized the essential purpose of the state and capitalism, they weren't fooled by it, and they weren't sucked in by reformism. It seems we are a long way to go to reach the same logical conclusions that were reached in the 1870s!
There seems to be a lack of prefigurative politics, or even an understanding of what that means. Prefigurative politics is based on the notion that the "future society" is how we act in the present, what kinds of interactions, processes, structures, institutions, and associations we create right now, and how we live our lives. The notion that we just need more people, more resources, and more money to be channeled into these protests is utterly naïve, because it mistakes the problem as being quantitative, when in fact it is qualitative. The qualitative component deals with how we treat each other, the quality of people's lives, meeting individual wants and preferences, strengthening our ability to clearly and honestly communicate with each other our concerns, needs, feelings, and requests, in the context of a small-scale face-to-face environment. On the other hand, protests are mostly concerned with numbers, masses, and large, bureaucratized organizations, concerns which all too often ignore the crucial individual and inter-personal aspects. The protests against the G-8 conference last July in Genoa, Italy included up to 200,000 demonstrators, yet the only outcomes of the protest were a militarized police state bordering on fascism (or perhaps fascist), one dead, and many imprisoned and seriously injured. The strategy of protest doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere, so it is a wonder why people continue to engage in this failed tactic. If a methodology is proven time and time again of not being successful, then the rational response would be to critically examine the inadequacies of the unsuccessful methodology, and creatively and collectively think up and experiment with new methodologies.
The few instances when these mass demonstrations are critiqued, they are rarely ever rejected in toto; instead the solution is to have protests on the level of local communities and neighborhoods, rather than mass convergences to large cities. Their argument is that this would bridge the gap between activists and "regular people" and get more people active and radicalized in their local communities, and to have a more secure base of resistance. But the size of the protests are not the real problem, the real problem is the protest mentality itself, which remains qualitatively the same whether it's in a working-class neighborhood or in a major city.
Most of the corporate media reported that the protests were overwhelmingly "peaceful", and many of the protestors were quite content with this. Both sides accept the dichotomy of "peaceful"/"violent", just as they accept the dichotomy of "legal"/"illegal". This traps them into a moralistic, Statist mindset. Even the militant black bloc in past protests has never failed to mention that "property destruction is not violence", which indicates that they still accept this basic duality. The media are our enemy, their interests are antithetical to ours, and to hope for any kind of "positive coverage" is pie in the sky. We should not be surprised if the police beat and arrest us, if the media defame us, and if the general public hate us. That is to be expected, and we should start to recognize this and move on.
There doesn't seem to be so much a "movement" as there is a collection of divergent tendencies and ideologies, many of them incompatible with each other. With every protest, there has been very little attention to what we hope to achieve, and the claim that all protests, demonstrations, marches and rallies are useless and counter-productive is a new and shocking concept for most activists. The reason that the vast majority of "ordinary people" view us with fear and contempt is because we have nothing to offer them. The power of capitalism and the State does not exist in the streets, in blocking and shutting down major intersections. It exists in the everyday lives of people, more specifically: in their homes, workplaces, and communities. If we don't work on creating practical alternatives to the capitalist system, then it is no wonder most people won't join us - we don't offer them anything, and our petty squabbles are totally irrelevant to their lives.
The strategy I propose is of creating spheres of autonomy and self-sufficiency based on free association and common preference finding: bolos, temporary and permanent autonomous zones, counter-institutions, popular assemblies (see: http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=8614 for a contemporary example), small-scale decentralized agriculture, community gardens en masse, guilds, kibbutzes, worker-owned cooperatives, squats, local barter clubs (which have been popping up throughout parts of Argentina, see: http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=02/03/02/5676701, communist stores (based on the principle of "take what you need, donate what you can"), co-housing, urban and rural intentional communities, alternative and sustainable technology, computer-linked networks for co-ordinating and making decisions on a large-scale basis. Computer-linked networks may in fact supercede entirely the need for popular assemblies. The reason that creating these types of anti-authoritarian structures is a much more worthwhile strategy than protest and direct confrontation with the State is because it hits the State and capitalism where it hurts. Food Not Bombs, Independent Media Centers, micro-radio and the like are also important, but they don't provide people with food, clothing, and housing - that is, the real necessities of life.
The Black Panthers' Party in the 1960s and 70s set up free breakfast and lunch programs for neighborhood kids, community medical clinics, and self-defense classes. The fact that these counter-institutions triggered so much State repression, sometimes more so than armed struggle, shows how effective and threatening they were to the State. Keith Preston, in "Anarchism or Anarcho-Social Democracy?", writes: "Strategically, we need to follow the example of the most successful anarchist forces of all time- the Spanish anarchist revolutionaries. Our revolutionary agenda should be to develop an alliance of community organizations, unions, cooperatives, enterprises, service organizations, youth clubs, study groups and other popular associations".
What I've sketched above are just a few outlines of a strategy, described abstractly, which embodies the kind of direction I think we should be going in. The protest mentality is getting us nowhere, it is a strategy of powerlessness - it is not "what democracy looks like". If we are serious about doing away with this rotten system and living in a new way, we have to know what it is that we don't want, what it is we do want, and how to go about getting what we want. What we need is a new, radical, concrete, utopian praxis, free of the failed methodologies of Leftism, activism and protest.
Note: This article was originally published as a forum post at http://www.dualpower.net
If you are interested in seeing the discussion occuring around this article, you can discuss it at http://nhss.mahost.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=phpBB_14&file=index&action=viewtopic&topic=70&4
A "co-leader" of the IAC made the statement that "this is the largest march in U.S. history". What this statement was intended to convey, what effect another mass demonstration would have, and what they actually wanted were questions to be evaded. Sure, the Israeli army is terrorizing the region and committing genocide against the Palestinian people, and the U.S. government is an authoritarian war machine which routinely massacres, represses, brutalizes, imprisons, tortures, oppresses, exploits and starves people all over the globe - there is no question about that. This is nothing new, and has been going on for many decades.
But it seems that if a "movement" is going to be built, it needs a rational, comprehensive, holistic analysis of the current situation, and a fleshed-out, detailed, practical strategy to achieve whatever it is that happens to be its goals. The means must be consistent with the ends. This analysis and strategy would give direction to a movement and would act as a vehicle for personal and social transformation. What is alarming is the complete lack of any serious analysis or strategy, or even any concern over a lack of analysis or strategy, and the crowd's willingness, even eagerness to shout slogans, hold signs, and regurgitate the rhetoric of the speakers.
Estimates for this march were put at 10-15,000 by the mainstream media and 75-100,000 by the independent media (both of whom exaggerate numbers to serve their particular agenda). Regardless, the march was in the tens of thousands. It seems that 50,000 people would be able to gather together and deliberate on a grassroots level, based on free association, through networks of affinity groups and spokes-councils, their strategic and organizational plan of action. Instead, those same 50,000 people chose to walk around as an amorphous mass, chanting, holding signs, letting the government know how bad and inhuman it is and how it should stop funding murderous states, and basically putting themselves in a humiliating position of powerlessness.
Protestors are in the classic role of "protestors", people with no real power over their lives so they must demand it from the ruling class. Demonstrations also point to a lack of creativity; the only thing we can come up with is playing the song and dance of our rulers. How much longer will these protests go on for? If we could only get a few more tens of thousands to protest, will we be successful in overthrowing capitalism, the state and wage-slavery? Why do the state, capitalism and wage-slavery exist, why do the governments of the U.S. and Israel do what they do, and what are we actually going to do about it?
One of the speakers, from a Muslim rights group, appealed to President Bush to warn Ariel Sharon that if he doesn't stop his war crimes, then immediate action will be taken. It is unbearably painful to witness such utter naivety. It is quite apparent that genocide and "war crimes" are normal functions of any state, that they are not doing anything irresponsible. The state will do anything to maintain its power, whether legal or illegal. Leftists and progressives point out that Israel has violated the Geneva Convention, and that their activity is "illegal". By accepting the false dichotomy of "legal"/"illegal" we are accepting their frame of reference and their world-view. We are viewing the situation from a liberal, idealistic perspective, of how the state is supposed to behave. Radicals and revolutionaries over a hundred years ago recognized the essential purpose of the state and capitalism, they weren't fooled by it, and they weren't sucked in by reformism. It seems we are a long way to go to reach the same logical conclusions that were reached in the 1870s!
There seems to be a lack of prefigurative politics, or even an understanding of what that means. Prefigurative politics is based on the notion that the "future society" is how we act in the present, what kinds of interactions, processes, structures, institutions, and associations we create right now, and how we live our lives. The notion that we just need more people, more resources, and more money to be channeled into these protests is utterly naïve, because it mistakes the problem as being quantitative, when in fact it is qualitative. The qualitative component deals with how we treat each other, the quality of people's lives, meeting individual wants and preferences, strengthening our ability to clearly and honestly communicate with each other our concerns, needs, feelings, and requests, in the context of a small-scale face-to-face environment. On the other hand, protests are mostly concerned with numbers, masses, and large, bureaucratized organizations, concerns which all too often ignore the crucial individual and inter-personal aspects. The protests against the G-8 conference last July in Genoa, Italy included up to 200,000 demonstrators, yet the only outcomes of the protest were a militarized police state bordering on fascism (or perhaps fascist), one dead, and many imprisoned and seriously injured. The strategy of protest doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere, so it is a wonder why people continue to engage in this failed tactic. If a methodology is proven time and time again of not being successful, then the rational response would be to critically examine the inadequacies of the unsuccessful methodology, and creatively and collectively think up and experiment with new methodologies.
The few instances when these mass demonstrations are critiqued, they are rarely ever rejected in toto; instead the solution is to have protests on the level of local communities and neighborhoods, rather than mass convergences to large cities. Their argument is that this would bridge the gap between activists and "regular people" and get more people active and radicalized in their local communities, and to have a more secure base of resistance. But the size of the protests are not the real problem, the real problem is the protest mentality itself, which remains qualitatively the same whether it's in a working-class neighborhood or in a major city.
Most of the corporate media reported that the protests were overwhelmingly "peaceful", and many of the protestors were quite content with this. Both sides accept the dichotomy of "peaceful"/"violent", just as they accept the dichotomy of "legal"/"illegal". This traps them into a moralistic, Statist mindset. Even the militant black bloc in past protests has never failed to mention that "property destruction is not violence", which indicates that they still accept this basic duality. The media are our enemy, their interests are antithetical to ours, and to hope for any kind of "positive coverage" is pie in the sky. We should not be surprised if the police beat and arrest us, if the media defame us, and if the general public hate us. That is to be expected, and we should start to recognize this and move on.
There doesn't seem to be so much a "movement" as there is a collection of divergent tendencies and ideologies, many of them incompatible with each other. With every protest, there has been very little attention to what we hope to achieve, and the claim that all protests, demonstrations, marches and rallies are useless and counter-productive is a new and shocking concept for most activists. The reason that the vast majority of "ordinary people" view us with fear and contempt is because we have nothing to offer them. The power of capitalism and the State does not exist in the streets, in blocking and shutting down major intersections. It exists in the everyday lives of people, more specifically: in their homes, workplaces, and communities. If we don't work on creating practical alternatives to the capitalist system, then it is no wonder most people won't join us - we don't offer them anything, and our petty squabbles are totally irrelevant to their lives.
The strategy I propose is of creating spheres of autonomy and self-sufficiency based on free association and common preference finding: bolos, temporary and permanent autonomous zones, counter-institutions, popular assemblies (see: http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=8614 for a contemporary example), small-scale decentralized agriculture, community gardens en masse, guilds, kibbutzes, worker-owned cooperatives, squats, local barter clubs (which have been popping up throughout parts of Argentina, see: http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=02/03/02/5676701, communist stores (based on the principle of "take what you need, donate what you can"), co-housing, urban and rural intentional communities, alternative and sustainable technology, computer-linked networks for co-ordinating and making decisions on a large-scale basis. Computer-linked networks may in fact supercede entirely the need for popular assemblies. The reason that creating these types of anti-authoritarian structures is a much more worthwhile strategy than protest and direct confrontation with the State is because it hits the State and capitalism where it hurts. Food Not Bombs, Independent Media Centers, micro-radio and the like are also important, but they don't provide people with food, clothing, and housing - that is, the real necessities of life.
The Black Panthers' Party in the 1960s and 70s set up free breakfast and lunch programs for neighborhood kids, community medical clinics, and self-defense classes. The fact that these counter-institutions triggered so much State repression, sometimes more so than armed struggle, shows how effective and threatening they were to the State. Keith Preston, in "Anarchism or Anarcho-Social Democracy?", writes: "Strategically, we need to follow the example of the most successful anarchist forces of all time- the Spanish anarchist revolutionaries. Our revolutionary agenda should be to develop an alliance of community organizations, unions, cooperatives, enterprises, service organizations, youth clubs, study groups and other popular associations".
What I've sketched above are just a few outlines of a strategy, described abstractly, which embodies the kind of direction I think we should be going in. The protest mentality is getting us nowhere, it is a strategy of powerlessness - it is not "what democracy looks like". If we are serious about doing away with this rotten system and living in a new way, we have to know what it is that we don't want, what it is we do want, and how to go about getting what we want. What we need is a new, radical, concrete, utopian praxis, free of the failed methodologies of Leftism, activism and protest.
Note: This article was originally published as a forum post at http://www.dualpower.net
If you are interested in seeing the discussion occuring around this article, you can discuss it at http://nhss.mahost.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=phpBB_14&file=index&action=viewtopic&topic=70&4
For more information:
http://www.dualpower.net
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
"The strategy I propose is of creating spheres of autonomy and self-sufficiency based on free association and common preference finding: bolos, temporary and permanent autonomous zones, counter-institutions, popular assemblies"
Protests don't have a huge effect but the normal effect of autonomous communities in the US is even less. While some groups like the Black Panthers were able to do local community work AND keep a public visibility, most groups that decide to be separate form society are unnoticed. Having a separate community that takes the place of the state for local functions may seem radical but an alternative community can frequently looks no different from a gated community. Alternative communities are usually not open, meaning that the membership is selective. The result of this is nothing that resembles a society that can exist in the future; a society unlike an alternative community must accept all members (unless you plan on banishing people or imprisoning them in a future society) Alternative institutions frequently have the same issue. By being even more selective than existing institutions you end up with something that would be worse as the basis for a society than existing institutions; would you want workplaces in a future society to be as based on personal connections and ideological purity as existing counter institutions? Counter institutions serve their role today and can help build movements (and probably need their selectivity to remain secure and useful) but we should not fool ourselves into seeing them as “building a new society within the old”.
Protests, unlike alternative communities, are at least outward looking. The goal is usually to reach out beyond the existing radical communities both in terms of organizing and in terms of media. While I disagree with the WWP on most ideological issues, I liked April 20 as a consequence of the size rather than because of the size. At the A20 protest I was able to meet and share ideas with many more people from the Middle East than I ever could at an anarchist or communist event (let alone an anarchist or communist community event). Perhaps I like large protests because a community is created in a public space so unlike intentional communities the membership remains open and as a consequence the chance to organize real changes in society are greater.
Its easy to say that all of the Palestinian protests had no effect but if you look at Middle Eastern politics, they did. Coverage (both corporate and personal correspondence) had an effect on many in both the Israeli public and the public in the rest of the Arab world. The result was a feeling around that time that if Israel continued things could get out of control and a regional government (Egypt, Jordan etc..) might fall. Local protests in the Arab world had a much larger effect than protests in the US but protests here did help support those protests. If American ideologes try to divide future protest, undermine other leftists groups to reduce crowd size, etc.. the end result will be that the US and Israel will find it easier to get away with even more. Large protests can equal coverage. Lack of coverage can equal death.
Protests don't have a huge effect but the normal effect of autonomous communities in the US is even less. While some groups like the Black Panthers were able to do local community work AND keep a public visibility, most groups that decide to be separate form society are unnoticed. Having a separate community that takes the place of the state for local functions may seem radical but an alternative community can frequently looks no different from a gated community. Alternative communities are usually not open, meaning that the membership is selective. The result of this is nothing that resembles a society that can exist in the future; a society unlike an alternative community must accept all members (unless you plan on banishing people or imprisoning them in a future society) Alternative institutions frequently have the same issue. By being even more selective than existing institutions you end up with something that would be worse as the basis for a society than existing institutions; would you want workplaces in a future society to be as based on personal connections and ideological purity as existing counter institutions? Counter institutions serve their role today and can help build movements (and probably need their selectivity to remain secure and useful) but we should not fool ourselves into seeing them as “building a new society within the old”.
Protests, unlike alternative communities, are at least outward looking. The goal is usually to reach out beyond the existing radical communities both in terms of organizing and in terms of media. While I disagree with the WWP on most ideological issues, I liked April 20 as a consequence of the size rather than because of the size. At the A20 protest I was able to meet and share ideas with many more people from the Middle East than I ever could at an anarchist or communist event (let alone an anarchist or communist community event). Perhaps I like large protests because a community is created in a public space so unlike intentional communities the membership remains open and as a consequence the chance to organize real changes in society are greater.
Its easy to say that all of the Palestinian protests had no effect but if you look at Middle Eastern politics, they did. Coverage (both corporate and personal correspondence) had an effect on many in both the Israeli public and the public in the rest of the Arab world. The result was a feeling around that time that if Israel continued things could get out of control and a regional government (Egypt, Jordan etc..) might fall. Local protests in the Arab world had a much larger effect than protests in the US but protests here did help support those protests. If American ideologes try to divide future protest, undermine other leftists groups to reduce crowd size, etc.. the end result will be that the US and Israel will find it easier to get away with even more. Large protests can equal coverage. Lack of coverage can equal death.
Protests are always useful, but no one every claimed they are revolutionary. If you want a revolution, you will have to organize the workingclass into a labor movement to take state power and establish socialism.
As to the Black Panthers, this short-lived (1966-1974) small organization of perhaps 5,000 black people, in a nation of 203 million people in 1970, of whom 22 million were black was a black nationalist organization which started as simply a self-defense organization against police brutality and then set up some programs to address some of the many problems in the workingclass black community.
The weakness of the Black Panther Party was that it was a nationalist organization. It called for exempting all black people from military service when it should have called for exempting the entire workingclass from military service since only the rich profit from war, while it is the workingclass who dies fighting these stupid wars.
The reason the Black Panther Party was attacked so viciously is because the black community then, and still now, was overwhelmingly workingclass, and thus any community organizing to make life a little bearable, which necessarily included eliminating all the police-profiteering rackets like drug-pushing, was opposed by the ruling class. It was not the little programs that bothered the ruling class; it was the fact that a sector of the workingclass was organizing and discussing change to improve at least that sector's lives.
We have had utopian communities and co-ops in the US history, and none of them change the system at all. They may make life a little bearable. To change the system, you have to organize the entire workingclass as a class, regardless of color, gender, sexual orientation, nationality or any other such identity.
The basic contradiction in a capitalist society is between labor and capital. When labor organizes as a class, we can make fundamental, revolutionary change. Meanwhile, I plan to attend as many protests as I can.
As to the Black Panthers, this short-lived (1966-1974) small organization of perhaps 5,000 black people, in a nation of 203 million people in 1970, of whom 22 million were black was a black nationalist organization which started as simply a self-defense organization against police brutality and then set up some programs to address some of the many problems in the workingclass black community.
The weakness of the Black Panther Party was that it was a nationalist organization. It called for exempting all black people from military service when it should have called for exempting the entire workingclass from military service since only the rich profit from war, while it is the workingclass who dies fighting these stupid wars.
The reason the Black Panther Party was attacked so viciously is because the black community then, and still now, was overwhelmingly workingclass, and thus any community organizing to make life a little bearable, which necessarily included eliminating all the police-profiteering rackets like drug-pushing, was opposed by the ruling class. It was not the little programs that bothered the ruling class; it was the fact that a sector of the workingclass was organizing and discussing change to improve at least that sector's lives.
We have had utopian communities and co-ops in the US history, and none of them change the system at all. They may make life a little bearable. To change the system, you have to organize the entire workingclass as a class, regardless of color, gender, sexual orientation, nationality or any other such identity.
The basic contradiction in a capitalist society is between labor and capital. When labor organizes as a class, we can make fundamental, revolutionary change. Meanwhile, I plan to attend as many protests as I can.
I think organizing work places has a big advantage over insular activist communities in that work places have less well-defined bounds. A work place better represents a cross section of the population than does a group of friends.
The problem with a lot of the rhetoric of organizing the “working class” is that it’s not working. Unions have decreased in power over the last few decades and many working class people have come to see their Union more as a branch of the HR department than an organization they have a stake in.
The largest issues that arise around organizing the working class involve the type of jobs in the economy. Unions have traditionally focused on industrial jobs but the work force is moving towards the service sector. Some unions have tried to take this challenge on, but the transient nature of many service sector jobs makes traditional union organizing hard.
While organizing around work places should be a major focus of those pushing for societal change, focusing on traditional unions and strikes leaves out most of the “working class” population. Perhaps broader issue movements around healthcare, 40 hour weeks, etc.. could make the labor movement once again relevant to people who may have been alienated by corrupt unions and workplaces that seem impossible to organize.
The problem with a lot of the rhetoric of organizing the “working class” is that it’s not working. Unions have decreased in power over the last few decades and many working class people have come to see their Union more as a branch of the HR department than an organization they have a stake in.
The largest issues that arise around organizing the working class involve the type of jobs in the economy. Unions have traditionally focused on industrial jobs but the work force is moving towards the service sector. Some unions have tried to take this challenge on, but the transient nature of many service sector jobs makes traditional union organizing hard.
While organizing around work places should be a major focus of those pushing for societal change, focusing on traditional unions and strikes leaves out most of the “working class” population. Perhaps broader issue movements around healthcare, 40 hour weeks, etc.. could make the labor movement once again relevant to people who may have been alienated by corrupt unions and workplaces that seem impossible to organize.
"Grandma's Battle Cry" Words by Irene Paull (1908-1981), music by Barbara Tilsen, recorded by Bay Area folksinger Faith Petric
Irene Paull was a friend of the family, labor organizer, writer and peacenik. Below is a piece of her fine writing that says it all for protests:
"It's blowing in the wind again, it's drifting in the rain
Before the dead have moldered yet or wounded healed their pain.
I am so old, my grandsons, that I remember when
I marched to hail the armistice and I was barely ten.
That was the war against all war, to save democracy.
Praise god, they said, we've won the peace for all eternity."
"I marched for Spain when some years passed and marched and marched and then
Another war to end all war and so I marched again;
I marched in Minneapolis, Chicago and Duluth,
In San Francisco and New York, I marched to shout the truth.
I marched in Hiroshima and I knelt before a stash
Of tens of million bones of people atomized to ash,
And with the distant rumble of new regiments of men
I read the warning on the tomb, 'This must not be again.'"
CHORUS:
"I marched to staunch Korea's blood, I marched for Vietnam
I marched to stop the napalm and I marched to stop the bomb,
I've marched and marched and marched, Oh Lord,
I'm sure I've done my due
I've marched since I was barely ten and now I'm seventy-two."
"I should be lying in the sun or dreaming in the grass
But how when generals everywhere are polishing their brass?
Entranced with dreams of four-star roles, so help me, Lord, they're glad!
It's said that whom the gods destroy they first must render mad.
Their burning eyes see No-Man's Land and armies poised for action
And you, my warm and loving ones, you're merely an abstraction."
"It's geopolitics again, and oh, with what finesse
The players push their pawns about, these masterminds of chess!
How cunningly they plot each move, how logically they spar
And checkmate one another like the masters that they are.
How stimulating, how intense, a world to lose or gain,
Except for one dismaying fact…the players are insane.
Composed, dispassionate they play this game that madness spawns
And I can't even look away, my children are the pawns."
CHORUS
"Some people keep on fighting when they've lost an arm or leg
Some still keep up the struggle when they're fragile as an egg
I've heard men rasping 'I object!' with voices turned to gravel
I've seen a woman raise a fist who couldn't lift a gavel,
And even with a broken heart one still can make a stand,
So lead, my children, lead the way, reach back and take my hand,
We'll march again, confound them all, don't quibble at my age!
I'll shield you with my brittle bones! I'll nourish you with rage!"
CHORUS
Irene Paull was a friend of the family, labor organizer, writer and peacenik. Below is a piece of her fine writing that says it all for protests:
"It's blowing in the wind again, it's drifting in the rain
Before the dead have moldered yet or wounded healed their pain.
I am so old, my grandsons, that I remember when
I marched to hail the armistice and I was barely ten.
That was the war against all war, to save democracy.
Praise god, they said, we've won the peace for all eternity."
"I marched for Spain when some years passed and marched and marched and then
Another war to end all war and so I marched again;
I marched in Minneapolis, Chicago and Duluth,
In San Francisco and New York, I marched to shout the truth.
I marched in Hiroshima and I knelt before a stash
Of tens of million bones of people atomized to ash,
And with the distant rumble of new regiments of men
I read the warning on the tomb, 'This must not be again.'"
CHORUS:
"I marched to staunch Korea's blood, I marched for Vietnam
I marched to stop the napalm and I marched to stop the bomb,
I've marched and marched and marched, Oh Lord,
I'm sure I've done my due
I've marched since I was barely ten and now I'm seventy-two."
"I should be lying in the sun or dreaming in the grass
But how when generals everywhere are polishing their brass?
Entranced with dreams of four-star roles, so help me, Lord, they're glad!
It's said that whom the gods destroy they first must render mad.
Their burning eyes see No-Man's Land and armies poised for action
And you, my warm and loving ones, you're merely an abstraction."
"It's geopolitics again, and oh, with what finesse
The players push their pawns about, these masterminds of chess!
How cunningly they plot each move, how logically they spar
And checkmate one another like the masters that they are.
How stimulating, how intense, a world to lose or gain,
Except for one dismaying fact…the players are insane.
Composed, dispassionate they play this game that madness spawns
And I can't even look away, my children are the pawns."
CHORUS
"Some people keep on fighting when they've lost an arm or leg
Some still keep up the struggle when they're fragile as an egg
I've heard men rasping 'I object!' with voices turned to gravel
I've seen a woman raise a fist who couldn't lift a gavel,
And even with a broken heart one still can make a stand,
So lead, my children, lead the way, reach back and take my hand,
We'll march again, confound them all, don't quibble at my age!
I'll shield you with my brittle bones! I'll nourish you with rage!"
CHORUS
You folks may be getting the wrong idea - Marc is not advocating some sort of insular retreat to the communes so that we can all farm sand in a replay of Easy Rider. What he is advocating (and I tend to agree with him) is an aggressive program of avowedly revolutionary squats, direct actions that have more than symbolic value, and the construction of a network of mutual aid organizations that can offer practical assistance to people who need help now, thereby fostering radical social change. The bulk of the working classes may not be doing very well, but I believe that they are highly unlikely to risk much at this point because they don't see much potential benefit - if you're feeding the kids, and you're one paycheck away from being out on the street or going without food, you're not going to get involved in any kind of movement for social change if the option to keep it cool and play the game is still viable, if disagreeable.
Also, people live their lives within a totality of capitalist social relations that are only rarely challenged by the kinds of union recruiting (or Party recruiting) that you seem to be advocating. They never get the chance to try out anything different, or even just watch something different in action - they are acted upon, they are not actors. We need to change that, and offer people some sort of constructive, participatory role with more content than "Hey, show up and march in this march and then listen to this speech I'm going to make to you."
If you're interested in making your points directly to Marc, feel free to continue the discussions in the forums at http://www.dualpower.net, it's very difficult to keep track of what's going on at all the different IMCs...
Also, people live their lives within a totality of capitalist social relations that are only rarely challenged by the kinds of union recruiting (or Party recruiting) that you seem to be advocating. They never get the chance to try out anything different, or even just watch something different in action - they are acted upon, they are not actors. We need to change that, and offer people some sort of constructive, participatory role with more content than "Hey, show up and march in this march and then listen to this speech I'm going to make to you."
If you're interested in making your points directly to Marc, feel free to continue the discussions in the forums at http://www.dualpower.net, it's very difficult to keep track of what's going on at all the different IMCs...
I'll probably just respond here since I'm lazy and if someone spammed all the IMCs with the same post they shouldnt go around complaining that the comments are all over the place.
"direct actions that have more than symbolic value" sounds good but I am sceptical about the squat movements since the ones I've seen have been pretty insular (although not as insular as a rural communes).
Many people need housing and squatting is a solution for a very small number of people (section 8 is pretty bad but serves a broader cross section of the community than any squat I've seen). If a bunch of activists want to set up squats to serve as a resource center for actions thats great but in and of themselves (at least in the US) they are in no way a method to "build a new society within the old".
I think there is a real danger in seeing lifestylism as an activist tactic rather than a support tactic.Free housing during large protests, free food at protests, economic support to workers out on strike etc.. are support tactics. Giving a small number of people free food is great, but many churchs do this and they dont see it as a way to start a revolution(although the people getting the food need it and a lack of revolutionary potential doesnt make it bad). Support tactics make it easier for the direct action, protests, strikes etc.. to take place, but they are not an end in and of themselves.
"direct actions that have more than symbolic value" sounds good but I am sceptical about the squat movements since the ones I've seen have been pretty insular (although not as insular as a rural communes).
Many people need housing and squatting is a solution for a very small number of people (section 8 is pretty bad but serves a broader cross section of the community than any squat I've seen). If a bunch of activists want to set up squats to serve as a resource center for actions thats great but in and of themselves (at least in the US) they are in no way a method to "build a new society within the old".
I think there is a real danger in seeing lifestylism as an activist tactic rather than a support tactic.Free housing during large protests, free food at protests, economic support to workers out on strike etc.. are support tactics. Giving a small number of people free food is great, but many churchs do this and they dont see it as a way to start a revolution(although the people getting the food need it and a lack of revolutionary potential doesnt make it bad). Support tactics make it easier for the direct action, protests, strikes etc.. to take place, but they are not an end in and of themselves.
Many protests by anarchist groups are so crazy that nowone is understaning what the hell is going on. You have 10,000 people with 100,000 causes.Even the "daily show" on comedy central goofed on them.
The object of a protest is to win the people in the "middle",but when you have sighns saying "down with capitalism" the majority does not take it seriously.It all looks like some bizzare side show.
The object of a protest is to win the people in the "middle",but when you have sighns saying "down with capitalism" the majority does not take it seriously.It all looks like some bizzare side show.
I should probably ignore Ronnie Ray-Gun since he was a pretty positive view of anarchists if he thinks we can actually organize large protests.
In response to the article Nessie linked to:
In theory, it may be possible for a movement to make the government irrelevant. I grew up around a lot of hippies who had this slow view of Revolution that someday (long after they died) fewer and fewer people would be taking part in the system and it would somehow end. The problem is that those movements didn’t grow, they got smaller. If we could come up with counter institutions that would serve the bulk of society I think we could achieve something, but small scale counter institutions seem to have all gone in a negative direction. I don't know how many local food co-ops I’ve seen that (as their customers aged and became yuppies) became natural food stores and eventually really expensive places only catering to the rich. The problem with small-scale counter institutions is that they don’t look all that different from small businesses. Its easy to organize a small business on egalitarian principles, the difficult part is creating something large that runs on those principles. And small businesses help capitalism more than they hurt it (they count as part of the GDP etc...)
Small alternative collective can help test out new ideas that are later adopted by MNCs. “Remember how in that novel *The Free* the anarchists were driving trucks fueled with methanol that was made from sugar beets that they grew on their own collective farms?” Lets say some community in Northern California did this. If somehow this was cheaper than oil, the next thing you know MNCs all over the world would be setting up massive sugar beat farms that could produce sugar beets at a fraction of the cost of a small anarchist farmer. More likely it would be more expensive but even if a even a sizable segment of the population was willing to spend more for “green” gasoline a few MNCs would grow sugar beets and bring in some extra money through mass production (this has already happened with organic agriculture). But anarchists could boycott the corporate beet methanol? Well the people using locally grown stuff would probably be small and you would end up with a farmers-market type situation where the switchover wouldn’t have much impact. Well aren’t farmers-markets at least something? They may have a tiny impact on pesticide use and factory farming but rich cities usually ENCOURAGE them since they make the city seem more charming and increase property values.
Building large counter institutions will be difficult and part of the risk is keeping the counter institutions from slowly looking like a mirror image of the society they are intended to replace (and merging back into society).
In response to the article Nessie linked to:
In theory, it may be possible for a movement to make the government irrelevant. I grew up around a lot of hippies who had this slow view of Revolution that someday (long after they died) fewer and fewer people would be taking part in the system and it would somehow end. The problem is that those movements didn’t grow, they got smaller. If we could come up with counter institutions that would serve the bulk of society I think we could achieve something, but small scale counter institutions seem to have all gone in a negative direction. I don't know how many local food co-ops I’ve seen that (as their customers aged and became yuppies) became natural food stores and eventually really expensive places only catering to the rich. The problem with small-scale counter institutions is that they don’t look all that different from small businesses. Its easy to organize a small business on egalitarian principles, the difficult part is creating something large that runs on those principles. And small businesses help capitalism more than they hurt it (they count as part of the GDP etc...)
Small alternative collective can help test out new ideas that are later adopted by MNCs. “Remember how in that novel *The Free* the anarchists were driving trucks fueled with methanol that was made from sugar beets that they grew on their own collective farms?” Lets say some community in Northern California did this. If somehow this was cheaper than oil, the next thing you know MNCs all over the world would be setting up massive sugar beat farms that could produce sugar beets at a fraction of the cost of a small anarchist farmer. More likely it would be more expensive but even if a even a sizable segment of the population was willing to spend more for “green” gasoline a few MNCs would grow sugar beets and bring in some extra money through mass production (this has already happened with organic agriculture). But anarchists could boycott the corporate beet methanol? Well the people using locally grown stuff would probably be small and you would end up with a farmers-market type situation where the switchover wouldn’t have much impact. Well aren’t farmers-markets at least something? They may have a tiny impact on pesticide use and factory farming but rich cities usually ENCOURAGE them since they make the city seem more charming and increase property values.
Building large counter institutions will be difficult and part of the risk is keeping the counter institutions from slowly looking like a mirror image of the society they are intended to replace (and merging back into society).
After reading the anti-protest rant, lies and the naive historical conclusions by Marc, it was good to read the more honest proposals by nessie even if I’m skeptical of his conclusions--at least he does not lie and fabricate stuff.
Marc seems to be trying to appeal to the IMC crowd by giving much that we may agree with. Is this to make his irrational attacks on protestors more believable. How about having the integrity to stick with facts. Apparently Marc is an anti-Palestinian racist.
Why else would he make stupid exaggerations or come out with outright lies regarding the important peace March in Washington last spring. He does all he can to belittle the entire event by smearing all who participate by associating them with alleged nuts, emotional chants and undemocratic groups.
Marc writes “Estimates for this march were put at 10-15,000 by the mainstream media and 75-100,000 by the independent media (both of whom exaggerate numbers to serve their particular agenda).” He then implies that the real number was more like 50,000. Why would any friend of anarchist thinking deliberately mislead readers who are ignorant of the facts. Actually, 75,000 was the number that the Washington police came up with. My estimate was 100,000.
I spent all day at this function, talked and listened to many people and as a long time anti-war activist, I found that experience very moving. Also Marc’s cheap attack on Palestinian is deplorable. That many speakers held portraits of Arafat is a lie. A few signs did equate Sharon with Hitler, and that was a bit of a stretch.
Why all the bullshit, lies and the insulting of all who dare to protest against wars, crooked governments and officials and the inhumane that has killed 1750 Palestinians in the past 21 months. Yes, I know 550 Israelis have also been killed. I also know that in all modern wars most of the victims on both sides are civilians.
Why do I protest. Often, I have been the only person protesting about some injustice. It is difficult to protest when you are alone against a large majority. What I hope for is that my protest will educate other human beings and pretty soon one will become 100, then 100,000, then 1,000,000. When that happens the establishment takes notice and things are changed thanks to the brave and caring protestors.
Throughout history people like me have changed history. It is not easy. Not protesting is the easy and cowardly thing to do. In America the majority used to think that it was OK to burn witches and make slaves of black people. Protest ended the was in Vietnam. Protest has ended many oppressive governments. Protest of a tax on tea lead to the creation of America.
That protestors just waste their time and never accomplish anything is 100% bullshit.
Free Palestine
Marc seems to be trying to appeal to the IMC crowd by giving much that we may agree with. Is this to make his irrational attacks on protestors more believable. How about having the integrity to stick with facts. Apparently Marc is an anti-Palestinian racist.
Why else would he make stupid exaggerations or come out with outright lies regarding the important peace March in Washington last spring. He does all he can to belittle the entire event by smearing all who participate by associating them with alleged nuts, emotional chants and undemocratic groups.
Marc writes “Estimates for this march were put at 10-15,000 by the mainstream media and 75-100,000 by the independent media (both of whom exaggerate numbers to serve their particular agenda).” He then implies that the real number was more like 50,000. Why would any friend of anarchist thinking deliberately mislead readers who are ignorant of the facts. Actually, 75,000 was the number that the Washington police came up with. My estimate was 100,000.
I spent all day at this function, talked and listened to many people and as a long time anti-war activist, I found that experience very moving. Also Marc’s cheap attack on Palestinian is deplorable. That many speakers held portraits of Arafat is a lie. A few signs did equate Sharon with Hitler, and that was a bit of a stretch.
Why all the bullshit, lies and the insulting of all who dare to protest against wars, crooked governments and officials and the inhumane that has killed 1750 Palestinians in the past 21 months. Yes, I know 550 Israelis have also been killed. I also know that in all modern wars most of the victims on both sides are civilians.
Why do I protest. Often, I have been the only person protesting about some injustice. It is difficult to protest when you are alone against a large majority. What I hope for is that my protest will educate other human beings and pretty soon one will become 100, then 100,000, then 1,000,000. When that happens the establishment takes notice and things are changed thanks to the brave and caring protestors.
Throughout history people like me have changed history. It is not easy. Not protesting is the easy and cowardly thing to do. In America the majority used to think that it was OK to burn witches and make slaves of black people. Protest ended the was in Vietnam. Protest has ended many oppressive governments. Protest of a tax on tea lead to the creation of America.
That protestors just waste their time and never accomplish anything is 100% bullshit.
Free Palestine
I don't think that it would be great strategy to say that we are someday going to actually "starve out capitalism" by somehow beating them at their own game - that is, selling in the market. What I would suggest is that if we can show people functional, practical examples of our ideas in action, on a much larger scale than we do now - in terms of the whole world, still on a small scale - that's our best hope for convincing people that our ideas are workable and morally sound. I think that I can start to imagine large-scale social change if we took an approach that we are going to question certain things on a large scale through direct action.
I was recently involved in shooting video at a squat in Ottawa, and it really turned my thinking around on squats. Previous to this, it seemed sort of desperate and insular to me - but this squat was very open to the surrounding neighbourhood, they were working hard, they were gaining support within the city. They were very consciously going after publicity and managing their negotiations with police with a high degree of finesse. And they were taking the derelict piece of garbage formerly known as 246 Gilmour St. and turning it into a productive community asset. They were throwing the whole question of private property into question - why, in one of the richest cities in the world, were people freezing to death in the streets, within sight of empty houses? Why were the police defending these houses?
In the meantime, people were teaching each other valuable skills, things like carpentry, plumbing, gardening, cooking...members of the community were showing up to donate furniture, food, cash, and help out in a whole variety of ways. The local IMC people were covering the story and shoving cameras in cops' faces. Old people were showing up and being given tours of the house. It was the exact opposite of an 'insular' action.
Keep in mind that when the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement does an occupation, they get thousands of people involved; there are squats in Sao Paulo that are minor cities in their own right, with tens of thousands of people squatting, building their own food co-ops, medical systems, schools...
I was recently involved in shooting video at a squat in Ottawa, and it really turned my thinking around on squats. Previous to this, it seemed sort of desperate and insular to me - but this squat was very open to the surrounding neighbourhood, they were working hard, they were gaining support within the city. They were very consciously going after publicity and managing their negotiations with police with a high degree of finesse. And they were taking the derelict piece of garbage formerly known as 246 Gilmour St. and turning it into a productive community asset. They were throwing the whole question of private property into question - why, in one of the richest cities in the world, were people freezing to death in the streets, within sight of empty houses? Why were the police defending these houses?
In the meantime, people were teaching each other valuable skills, things like carpentry, plumbing, gardening, cooking...members of the community were showing up to donate furniture, food, cash, and help out in a whole variety of ways. The local IMC people were covering the story and shoving cameras in cops' faces. Old people were showing up and being given tours of the house. It was the exact opposite of an 'insular' action.
Keep in mind that when the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement does an occupation, they get thousands of people involved; there are squats in Sao Paulo that are minor cities in their own right, with tens of thousands of people squatting, building their own food co-ops, medical systems, schools...
I agree with Marc: protests do not work, at least they do not work in the U.S. over its foreign policy. Current local problems are connected with transnational forces; it needs transnational action. Take the issue of the civil wars in Central America... I would say, even though I was not politically aware of the events at the time, that none of the protests did a shred of good in the involvement of the government. There is much to be said for alternative media a la Chomsky, herman, etc. and it is very important; however media criticism or protests, themselves, without appeals to individual action that move beyond chatising the govt., writing letters, etc. is ineffective. Instead I think that change should be sought within transnational, trans-state borders. I.e. the activists that went to teh Mideast to put their bodies on the line, to witness the destruction and then go back to tell about it, or who violated Iraq sanctions by going across the border of Iraq to deliver medicine, etc. were creating actual problems for the state; they are subverting state authority, making it "irrelevant" if only in a small degree.
Same with Vietnam and Gulf War veterans who reject the interests of the state to shove them under the rug and ignore what they're saying. Now think about what would happen if anarchists were to organize in transnational activities; there is a reason why this kind of stuff is prohibited, called "terrorism."
I've been looking at stuff I think had been really effective over the twentieth century... a lot of it has to do with geography. One of the ways states control us is through our bodies. Although our minds are more in our own control, we have comparatively less control over our bodies and in certain aspects, we have almost none over where our bodies are in space, how our bodies need to be treated in order to keep living, in order for our minds and bodies to work together effectively. So our bodies are located in specific pathways and nodal points, positions of power and powerlessness. Where we decide to put down roots is a significant choice which can determine what kinds of fights we can engage in; some need close proximity with our own culture, some need close interaction with many others. Certain people overstep state borders and live in transnational border economies. These are not necessarily areas that are next to state borders, but areas that are intense concentrations of power and powerlessness. The autonomous movement of our bodies across such state borders, as well as the free existence in urban nodal areas that are more highly contested, e.g. San Francisco or New York, is one concrete area in which state power suppresses the local inhabitants and exerts a heavy hand on geography. Anarchist thought should be especially interested in these sites of contestation; that's exactly where the forefront of our culture(s) are determined and where the division of labor is articulated.
I'm not just talking about squatting, though that is an idea we need to reclaim and reshape. But there's also the divisions of who is a "legal citizen" of our society--I'm talking about both the "anarchist" movement, where some will fit in and some don't based on what kind of lifestyle they are pigeonholed into--and the "greater" society that we live in when is only a patchwork of smaller societies.
A few months ago, I heard through a friend of mine that she knew someone who needed a place, because he was coming as an undocumented immigrant from Peru. I immediately offered to let him stay in my apartment til he obtained one. On a fundamental level, I think, this is one of the things we could do that would help us to be a less insular movement, to weaken the housing crisis, and to break the hold that the need for housing (space, to organize, to live, to spend time, to theorize, to have fun, to meet others) has over us.
I have not noticed this in New York, where I live, because the squattting movement is long since dead, or at least it seems that way from my vantage point.
Same with Vietnam and Gulf War veterans who reject the interests of the state to shove them under the rug and ignore what they're saying. Now think about what would happen if anarchists were to organize in transnational activities; there is a reason why this kind of stuff is prohibited, called "terrorism."
I've been looking at stuff I think had been really effective over the twentieth century... a lot of it has to do with geography. One of the ways states control us is through our bodies. Although our minds are more in our own control, we have comparatively less control over our bodies and in certain aspects, we have almost none over where our bodies are in space, how our bodies need to be treated in order to keep living, in order for our minds and bodies to work together effectively. So our bodies are located in specific pathways and nodal points, positions of power and powerlessness. Where we decide to put down roots is a significant choice which can determine what kinds of fights we can engage in; some need close proximity with our own culture, some need close interaction with many others. Certain people overstep state borders and live in transnational border economies. These are not necessarily areas that are next to state borders, but areas that are intense concentrations of power and powerlessness. The autonomous movement of our bodies across such state borders, as well as the free existence in urban nodal areas that are more highly contested, e.g. San Francisco or New York, is one concrete area in which state power suppresses the local inhabitants and exerts a heavy hand on geography. Anarchist thought should be especially interested in these sites of contestation; that's exactly where the forefront of our culture(s) are determined and where the division of labor is articulated.
I'm not just talking about squatting, though that is an idea we need to reclaim and reshape. But there's also the divisions of who is a "legal citizen" of our society--I'm talking about both the "anarchist" movement, where some will fit in and some don't based on what kind of lifestyle they are pigeonholed into--and the "greater" society that we live in when is only a patchwork of smaller societies.
A few months ago, I heard through a friend of mine that she knew someone who needed a place, because he was coming as an undocumented immigrant from Peru. I immediately offered to let him stay in my apartment til he obtained one. On a fundamental level, I think, this is one of the things we could do that would help us to be a less insular movement, to weaken the housing crisis, and to break the hold that the need for housing (space, to organize, to live, to spend time, to theorize, to have fun, to meet others) has over us.
I have not noticed this in New York, where I live, because the squattting movement is long since dead, or at least it seems that way from my vantage point.
The movement against US proxy wars in Central America didn't stop capitalism but they definitely had an impact. They served to show the Reagan Adm. (in particular) that there was organized opposition to it's murderous policies. There were alot of flaws to the Central American opposition but it did signal to the US government that resistance existed. Caspar Weinberger, the Defense Sec under Reagan, pointed to the large militant night demonstrations that occured in San Francisco, Chicago, and NY when the US deployed troops in Honduras in 1986 as an argument for NOT launching a military invasion.
These days, it seems that most demos are demonstrations of weakness. Especially the small demos, but also the bigger, orchestrated cow herds don't convey power to people that happen upon them. Who wants to be associated with a listless pleading procession, whatever the stated goals?
Instead of having lots of small demos that don't do shit, why not aim for fewer but larger, better publicized, events/actions? Having rememberable dates (first and third Thurdays at 7:30 PM, for example) and places (Berkeley Bart, 12th Street Bart in Oakland, 24th and Mission....) would help I think.
Nightime demos are good. Why so few of them?
These days, it seems that most demos are demonstrations of weakness. Especially the small demos, but also the bigger, orchestrated cow herds don't convey power to people that happen upon them. Who wants to be associated with a listless pleading procession, whatever the stated goals?
Instead of having lots of small demos that don't do shit, why not aim for fewer but larger, better publicized, events/actions? Having rememberable dates (first and third Thurdays at 7:30 PM, for example) and places (Berkeley Bart, 12th Street Bart in Oakland, 24th and Mission....) would help I think.
Nightime demos are good. Why so few of them?
what we need next time are torches that don't go out after only ten minutes. Paraffin dabbed on a few wisps of gauze wrapped around two foot long, 1" X .5" strips of lath or molding just doesn’t cut the mustard. What we need are some stout oak, four foot long, 1.75” dowels, with a six to eight inch strip canvas soaked in pine pitch wrapped around one end to a thickness of at least two inches. Carry two each. Don't light the second one till the first one goes out. Hang onto the dowels when they go out. They might come in handy later.
First of all, I disagree that protests in the US over foreign policy don't work at all. Remember that other countries cover news in the US, even though the US news ignores the rest of the world. At the very least, people in foreign countries might hear of even a small protest and it will give them hope and inspire them to continue resisting.
Second, there is a certain power to "powerless" protesting. Let me explain. Suppose John X is in jail, unjustly. You could break him out of jail. Most likely, he will be re-arrested, and you will be arrested also. Not much of an advance. But let's say you appeal to the ruling class by regular protests to "Free John X", and it works - his sentence is commuted, charges dropped, whatever - then you have gotten him released even within the terms of the system. Since they made the decision to free John X, to re-arrest him, they'll at least have to think of something new to charge him with.
The Free Mumia campaign seems based on "plain old protest" (with some direct actions - strikes and the like - in support). Mumia is not yet free, but there is no doubt that he would be dead already if it weren't for the movement to free him.
Second, there is a certain power to "powerless" protesting. Let me explain. Suppose John X is in jail, unjustly. You could break him out of jail. Most likely, he will be re-arrested, and you will be arrested also. Not much of an advance. But let's say you appeal to the ruling class by regular protests to "Free John X", and it works - his sentence is commuted, charges dropped, whatever - then you have gotten him released even within the terms of the system. Since they made the decision to free John X, to re-arrest him, they'll at least have to think of something new to charge him with.
The Free Mumia campaign seems based on "plain old protest" (with some direct actions - strikes and the like - in support). Mumia is not yet free, but there is no doubt that he would be dead already if it weren't for the movement to free him.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$160.00 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