I follow a great blog that discusses contemporary (mainly american) anarchist strategy. This week, the blogger posted a series of questions and opened a discussion on some things I also felt haven't been adequately addressed. Read on and join the discussion!
http://anarchiststrategy.blogspot.com/
http://anarchiststrategy.blogspot.com/2008/03/rnc-dnc-and-strategy-crossfire.html
I apologize in advance for the extra-long copy/paste that I'm leaving you with.
Friday, March 14, 2008
RNC, DNC, And Strategy: Crossfire
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.
Posted by
LobsterBeard@gmail.com at 11:41 PM
14 comments:
Anonymous said...
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
March 15, 2008 4:48 PM
Anonymous said...
p.s. - pay the bills...advertise!
March 15, 2008 4:49 PM
LobsterBeard@gmail.com said...
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.
March 15, 2008 6:09 PM
Anonymous said...
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...
March 15, 2008 7:19 PM
Anonymous said...
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.
March 16, 2008 2:48 AM
cornelius said...
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.
March 16, 2008 7:01 AM
Anonymous said...
"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?
March 16, 2008 10:53 PM
Anonymous said...
"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.
March 17, 2008 2:24 AM
LobsterBeard@gmail.com said...
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.
March 17, 2008 11:22 AM
Anonymous said...
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
March 17, 2008 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...
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
March 17, 2008 6:06 PM
Anonymous said...
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
March 18, 2008 12:17 AM
Anonymous said...
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.
March 18, 2008 4:57 AM
LobsterBeard@gmail.com said...
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.
March 18, 2008 1:04 PM
