Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Resistance’

“To be hopeful in bad times is not being foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of competition and cruelty but of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness.” – Howard Zinn

So much promise and hope, and yet so much, still, of all the worst of us. That is, though, the stuff activism is made of, I suppose. While so much is so good, with many dear friends and promising small-scale commons, our little household has also been dealt with a whole lot of shit over the last year, as we came up against a hostile and profoundly aggressive radicalism that seems to be more interested in inventing ever more enemies for itself than in building alternative communities of solidarity, mutual aid and respect. (more…)

Read Full Post »

People from at least 30 countries (including Egypt) have sent pizzas to help feed the folks occupying the Capitol building in Madison, WI.  It’s a small gesture of support, but concrete & immediate.
Here’s the info:  Ian’s Pizza, 608-257-9248. $20 gets a 20″ pie with drinks which will feed 8 people. Oh, and don’t forget something for a tip.
For background, here’s a New York Times piece on the pizza solidarity thing.


Read Full Post »

The wave of rebellion continues across the Middle East and North Africa, with Bahrain and Libya being the latest to hold the gaze of the international media. Where all this will lead us is still unclear, and I continue to react with equal parts optimism and dread. There is no question that this is an important historic moment, no question either that the international nature of this current rebellion is particularly significant – I mean, we have often witnessed struggles in various areas informing and inspiring one another, but rarely have we seen waves of protest play out so much like dominoes. It is abundantly clear that something has dramatically shifted in the region, and whatever it is that emerges is going to have lasting impact on the geo-politics of not only the affected nation-states, but the world. And what could be more inspiring than to see the ways popular uprising across the world has impacted the struggles of workers in Wisconsin? Facing an all-out legislative war on their hard-won rights, workers in that state have been mounting escalating protests not only against the specific legislation being proposed, but against the whole political-economic-cultural apparatus behind that legislation. And messages come from Egypt, messages of solidarity in struggle and even – from halfway across the globe – pizzas for the Wisconsin rebels from their comrades in Cairo. So. fucking. awesome.

Today, though, the news is all Libya, and it is interesting to watch the very different character of this coverage to that we’ve seen out of the other flashpoints of this rebellion. Oh, the generic celebration of people-power is the same, as is the focus on the individual dictator responsible for it all. But in Libya, for the first time in several weeks, we are witnessing a fairly coherent response from the EU, the Americans and the Canadians. In Libya, it is not an ally of the West that is set to tumble, but a long-time thorn in the side – and that makes for all the difference. (more…)

Read Full Post »

I have been meaning to get something up here the last few days, and actually started a few posts that are waiting half-done in my drafts folder.

Today, however, there is only one thing: the Egyptian revolt, the resignation of Mubarek, the celebration and hope. And the wondering, “what next?” (more…)

Read Full Post »

I haven’t posted here for some time – not because there is nothing to say, but simply because I’ve been busy and mostly concentrating my energies on local community-building projects. I’ve said nothing here about police repression at the G20/ G8, about the latest from Israel, the attacks on Libby Davies for her comments and the entirely-expected-but-no-less-infuriating-for-that response of the New Democrats. And even now, I don’t really feel like writing anything. But I have to, because I’m feeling pretty frustrated and concerned at the moment with a tendency I’m seeing more and more in local activism.

Last Friday, we were at Rhizome for a report-back on the G20, an event put on by Resist! Communications, Upping the Anti, the Vancouver Media Co-op. This was billed as both a G/20 reportback and an alt-media/legal defense fundraiser.

I like Resist!. I like Upping the Anti. And I am all about generating support for the G20/ G8 arrestees. I gotta say though, it’ll be a long time before you get me out to any event associated with the Media Co-op again. Not because a co-operatively run media isn’t a great fucking idea, not because there aren’t good people working with the media co-op, but because it has increasingly become a venue for hostile and hateful attacks upon some long-time and committed activists and upon anyone who questions the tactics and strategies  of the ‘black bloc’.

Now, I have my own thoughts on the black bloc and the diversity of tactics debate. I always have felt there is a role for that kind of political engagement, but not without recognizing that it is wide open to criticism because it too often devolves into vandalism for vandalism’s sake and too rarely comes out of any coherent strategy to support and engage with other movements and the broader public. But I’m not getting into that at the moment. Today I’m thinking about something that has emerged from that debate – a censorious and a quite vicious attack from a small group of people on anyone and everyone who puts forward a critique of the black bloc.  Derisive and offensive, this response has become all too common in recent months and is entirely incompatible with any meaningful resistance or community-building.

The Rhizome event opened with a film, available here for anyone who wants to watch it. I won’t bother with a deep analysis of the film because it’s a pretty juvenile piece of work with no real analytical content. Not to mention its having nothing whatsoever to do with movement-building. Watch it through. There’s a whole lot of excitement about the smashy-smash, a claim that the windows falling is “the sound of capitalism smashing”, and a string of attacks on other activists who expressed various levels of concern with the tactics of the black bloc or impact of those tactics on the protests more generally.

In the film, Derrick O’Keefe, a long-time Vancouver activist, is ridiculed for his outspoken position on black bloc tactics, even though he has spent the weeks since the G/20 garnering support for arrestees. Judy Rebick – one of the country’s leading feminists – is subjected to demeaning and sexist ridicule. And Naomi Klein, who stood up forcefully and publicly to defend No One Is Illegal organizer Harsha Walia in the face of criminal charges, was accused of having finally drunk the cop kool-aid.

At this point in the film, I should have just walked out of the room. Not because there isn’t criticism to be made – particularly of Rebick’s suggestion that the police should have arrested vandals early and let the rest of the protest go on. But because the tone of the whole film was one of disrespect, snitch-jacketing, and just plain abuse. This was no analysis of the protests, of the interaction between mainstream labour and non-governmental organizations, radicals within those movements, and the black bloc, of how they inform and very often rely on and benefit from one another. This was no engagement with those who did frame their criticism of police repression with a nod to order – whether due to real conviction, or rhetorical or political reasons. This was no call to those on the mainstream left to understand diversity of tactics with a parallel recognition and respect for the tactics others employ due to their own personal, organizational or logistical boundaries.

It was little more than a screed intended to send the message that critics of the black bloc are sell-outs, traitors, class enemies and – in keeping with the bullshit machismo of the film – pussies. And while much of the crowd seemed distinctly uneasy, those this sophomoric chest-pounding played to took only one thing away – encouragement to further dismiss other activists and a general indication that snitch-jacketing, slander, and perhaps even assault are good’ol revolutionary traditions and the mark of real radicals.

If it’s not clear yet, I was fucking disgusted.

Today I woke up, checked my email, and came across a blog post by Franklin Lopez, aka the Stimulator, maker of the fine piece of cinematography we were treated to at Rhizome and increasingly a spokesperson of the Vancouver Media Co-op. The post is here.

To be fair, this post is not nearly as offensive in tone as the film. It begins with a personal story, which though it doesn’t contribute much to the critical analysis of the piece, does speak to motivation and why issues of prisons and policing are so important- on a personal as well as a political level. And it does make arguments, some of which we can and should engage with seriously. Ultimately, though, its purpose is the same – to identify as ‘enemies’ activists who are critical of the black bloc, to discredit as irrelevant anyone working with organizations of the traditional left, and to implicitly threaten those who have publicly disagreed with the author –  even where Lopez needs to distort the truth in order to do so. (In the case of Derrick O’Keefe, for example, Lopez accuses him of publicly calling for people to identify members of the black bloc who may have been engaged in some smashy-smash and cop-car burnings. The tweet he refers to is in fact an in-joke that circulated among a small group of activists. Nowhere and at no time, that I am aware of, has Derrick ever called for arrests. He’s been pretty damn clear that he thinks BB tactics are at best unhelpful and at worst actually destructive to movement building, but that ain’t the same as working with the cops.)

You can read the piece for yourself and make what conclusions you will. You can watch the video above and do the same. But I could not let it all pass without saying something. So let me say it, and I’ll be sure to give plenty of reasons to attack me for those who are looking.

I’m a white-bread, straight Canadian male. with too much education for his own good. I’m also employed as a union rep, and get paid well for it,  for about the most liberal kind of organization you’ll ever come across. So, I’m prime for the pickings if you’re looking to dismiss all this as bullshit liberal leftism.

I’m also an anarchist and a Marxist, and I’ve been around workers’ organizations and the left my entire life. Let me define that a bit more clearly – I’ve been around multiple lefts my entire life. From at-first-glance-apolitical neighbourhood gardening groups to at-best-social-democratic trade unions to socialist organizations and anarchist networks. And because of that, I think resistance and community and struggle and anti-capitalism are pretty broad and complex things that almost-always contain within them some of the best and worst of what makes us human. And because of that, because our struggle is one of people in relationship against machines of discipline and control, I think those broad and complex movements always and everywhere contain, as well, pieces of the revolution and pieces of reaction.

My neighbourhood gardens group is made of random people who happen to live in the several blocks around me. Some renters, some home-owners. Families, couples, single folks. Professors, psychologists, gardeners, tradespeople, parents and home-keepers. Radicals, social democrats, liberals, and perhaps in the mix we’ve even got a Tory voter or two. I know for certain we have some non-voters – not conscientious objectors, but just people who don’t think the political has anything to do with their lives and want nothing more than to go to work, come home and have a safe park to take their kids. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of these neighbours condemn any disruptive protest, black bloc or not, and pretty much of all of them would almost certainly encourage the arrest of someone who threw a brick through a window or spray-painted a car.

These are the folks who live in neighbourhoods across the city. And they don’t want nothing to do with what we call resistance.  But there’s a whole lot more to it than that. These are also people who want to tear up our concrete streets to grow food and flowers. They voted, unanimously, to work collectively to build streetside gardens, and to make those gardens explicitly a public good, a commons, open to anyone and everyone who passes by. They watch out for each other. Across lines of race or ethnicity, income or occupation, political or religious belief, they watch out for each other. They want to know their neighbours. They want their kids to play together. They want to develop common places to gather. They want to share food and eat together. My neighbourhood gardening group is an apolitical and pretty random assortment of what calls itself Canada’s middle class. My neighbourhood gardening group is also in its own way, a little Bolivarian circle. A small example of what stateless organizing looks like. A reminder the world is way bigger than the left I know so well and that the revolution is not getting made anywhere anytime anyhow without average folks like this.

The union I work for is a union of the most highly-privileged workers you can imagine. Most of them don’t consider themselves workers at all, in fact. But at the end of the day, they are a union like any other, for the good and the bad. Unions, like my gardening group, represent a cross-section of the population, folks from a wide range of places who are brought together only by the fact that they work for the same employer. Some may make 5 or 6 times what others do for work that you might find it hard to tell apart. There is no political consensus. There is no fundamental unity of purpose. A union is a collection of people who happen to share some employment characteristics in common and who every now and then find common purposes to overcome their differences. But mostly it is an organization, a business, to collect dues in exchange for some legal and professional services. An insurance-scheme, if you like. In one part of my life, I devote my time to pretty harsh critiques of the model, to exploding the myth that the union as an organization has anything whatsoever to do with the relationship we call the working class or the struggles that emerge from that relationship. In another I represent that organization, I write its agreements, I defend its decisions, I shuttle its grievances through the legal process, I limit the expectations of its members to what is feasible and practical within the confines of the system. Contradictory? You bet. But as different as these two positions vis a vis the union are, they are also both critically important. The union is just another business, and sometimes just another boss. The union is also counselor, friend, convener of social gatherings, educator, and defender. Sometimes I can’t stand it, the bureaucracy, realpolitik, the mealy-mouthed fence-sitting. Other times I see workers walk out, sit down, fight like hell to defend a co-worker from discipline. Sometimes I see the unions get 20,000 people on the streets. And I know that matters.

And then there’s socialists and the left as we broadly understand the term. Anti-capitalists of different varieties, mostly vested in the creation of a better state rather than the abolition of such. Sometimes they stand on corners and flog crappy newspapers no one but their friends will ever read. They fight and bicker among themselves one day and show up to protest together the next. But sometimes, too, they pick up a gun to take on the paramilitaries that enforce corporate rule in their communities, or endure torture in jail cells because they formed a collective of peasant women or organized a strike of Coca-Cola workers. Or they go on the news to call for inquiries into police repression, trying to walk the line between the always-required distancing from violent protest while keeping the focus on the cops in some small hope that an inquiry will keep real issues on the agenda for another day or week, just long enough for a few more people to pay attention. Or they steal time and resources from the employer to print up leaflets for a rally against homelessness or keep their email networks informed about the latest police intrusion onto native land. Or they go bankrupt defending themselves in the courts against charges of hate speech or libel or god knows what because they won’t shut up about Israel’s apartheid machine.

And the anarchists are equally diverse. Defenders or disavowers of the black bloc, brick-throwers and extreme pacificsts who deem even property damage violence.  Some wage war on developers who tear up what remains of the forest, some hide underground to strike back quiet and silent in the only way they can think to do it. Some work standard office gigs and keep their opinions to themselves for fear of losing their jobs, some work for unions or NGOs and don’t mind talking about the strange dynamics of it all. Some come out of years in jail and just want a place to live, a job to pay the bills, and friends to laugh and talk with. Mostly they organize in their communities alongside neighbourhood groups, unions, socialists of all stripes. Mostly they build community gardens, form radical tech collectives, organize their workplaces, volunteer in prisons or youth detention centres. Above all else, they organize, struggle, and demand – a world beyond capitalism, a world beyond the state, communities of care and respect and mutual aid where we grow our own food and make our own beer and spend far less time working and far more time becoming human.

So here’s the thing I ask myself. Where do these kinds of videos and blog posts fit into all this? Where do the derision, threats and posturing of the film find a home? Nowhere. Because this kind of abusive attack has nothing in common with community building, solidarity or with relationships of kindness and mutual aid. It has nothing in common, period. It is anti-commons. It is arrogant and divisive and has no interest in talking about ideas, in finding out where the points of shared experience or shared interest are, in learning new things and changing one’s opinion. It cannot build any alternative to capital or the state because it cannot build the relationships of trust on which any alternative must be based. Anti-commons, anti-people, anti-revolutionary. Well, that ain’t any kind of resistance movement I want to be part of.

I wrote a little piece up after the Olympics, after the February Heart Attack action, on this site. I was a little dismissive myself, in that piece, I confess. But I was frustrated the snitch-jacketing and attacks on critical activists that had already begun at that time, because I did want to talk about these issues, to engage in the conversation. I wanted to do so because I think radicalism is necessary. Voices that push us further and push the cops and force the issue and refuse to settle for less than everything – these are abso-fucking-lutely critical, and I value them. But at the same time, that doesn’t mean anything goes. And it certainly doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to mount verbal or physical assaults on those who disagree or raise questions. We need those radical voices to recognize there is something just as precious, just as inspiring, in the block party to plant gardens and share seeds. We need those radical voices to show up when hotel workers strike and say all they want is a fair collective agreement even though we all know there’s no such thing. We need those radical voices in spaces of welcoming and respect.

I know that the vast majority of the anarchist and communist communities do all this, and work hard to maintain links to real people in their day to day struggles and to small-scale efforts at community-building. I see it every single day. But I also know that, for the past several months, we on the left – whatever left that is – have allowed a few voices to dominate our conversations, to set the terms of debate, to turn us from resistance-building to name-calling. And I know that folks across the spectrum are getting pretty fucking tired of it. There is nothing revolutionary about personal attacks on other activists. There is nothing revolutionary about deriding the women and men who go to work, do their jobs, pay their union dues and just want a fair deal. The revolution is made in social relationships, in hands together and meals shared. Yeah, we argue. Yeah, we bicker and fight. And our tactics are diverse. Sometimes we write letters to politicians cause our allies ask us to write letters to politicians and sometimes we blow up pipelines that are carrying poisons to our communities. But whatever we do and whenever we do it,  we ain’t making any revolution by ourselves. We’re making it with every relationship we build, and by demonstrating that the opposite of an alienating and hateful capitalism is not an alienating and hateful rage but a respectful, caring, and welcoming community of resistance.

All I know is that I want my radical movement to be about all the best of anarchism. Sadly, what I’m seeing of late is reminiscent of all the worst of Stalinism.

Oh, I should note that there are other voices also speaking in defense of black bloc tactics, but with far greater sophistication, far more of a critical eye, and a tone that combines solid argument with respect. For an example of this, see another Media Co-op blogger’s March piece here.  Yes, it is possible to take a position forcefully without denigrating all those who disagree. Thanks, Oshipeya, for the contribution to the discussion. A conversation much worth carrying on.

Read Full Post »

For as long as I can remember, I have been surrounded by activism. My folks were radical catholics, tied close to social movements in Latin America and the Philippines that based their anti-capitalist ethos in Christian ideals of equality, service, love. Christian, yes. But radical, no doubt. Indeed, though here in the North American context we tend to associate the Churches with conservatism if anything, in much of the world a whole lot of Church people organized, struggled, took up arms, built alternative communities. And radical Christians – Catholics mostly – were often a greater threat to the state, and therefore even more fiercely targeted than their Marxist allies. Anyway. There were some fucking radical activists around that scene, and often a little scraping of the surface of your local church solidarity group would reveal long-standing and close solidarities with people and groups our governments called terrorists.

As a kid, that was all pretty normal to me. Activism was everywhere and everything, and I recognized early on the spectrum of the movement from letter-writing to silent vigils to sabotage to full-blown war. It was all part of one struggle. It all arose from what I saw as one community. Some of it was spoken, much of it was left unsaid, but damn those links were close and strong. They were rooted in some deep friendships and deep loves. And they endured, and in many cases still endure.

So it felt pretty natural for me to seek my own activist place once I hit about 15 years old, and I sought it out in various communities and various struggles. From my time in southern Africa, I connected with South African resistance movements like the Pan-Africanist Congress, folks who articulated a more radical anti-apartheid struggle than we saw in the ANC at that time, who connected anti-capitalism to powerful anti-racism and anti-colonialism in a way that quite frankly scared much of the anti-apartheid movement. I raised some money, I wrote some articles for the Industrial Worker and other such radical publications, I spoke at events and did educationals for youth groups.  I maintained my close ties to the local Central America refugee community, and the Guatemalans in particular, who had been so much of my upbringing. We organized rallies and vigils, we spoke to Churches and unions, we found ways to get money and supplies into the hands of folks on the front-lines who needed them most. Then came my union work, first with the Farm Workers in south central LA, then back here with a few different unions, as rank and file organizer and as elected executive, and for many of those years also with the IWW, my radical home. By the mid to late 1990s, with the anti-globalization movement was in full swing,  I spent all day every day engaging labour to step up and take notice, to ally with rather than isolate and marginalize the movement that was growing – fiercer, less heirarchical, more democractic, more celebratory, more willing to engage in direct action. And through all this, and up to the early 2000s, it was Cuba solidarity and organizing networks to confront and break the blockade, and working with a large, cross-sectoral and multi-generational group to identify paths toward a new left alternative to break from the piss-ass social democracy that had taken hold after the fall of the socialist bloc and the great lie of  ‘There is no alternative’.

And then, all of a sudden, I was done. I stopped. I was working as a professional union staffer, so had that to pay the bills and make me feel I was still somewhat connected. I remained around the discussions and debates on the Left, but mostly on the margins. I stopped organizing. I stopped going to protests and actions. I simply couldn’t keep up the interest or engagement.

What happened? Well, a couple of things I think. For one, I had just separated, and threw everything I had into being a single dad, and being the best possible dad I could be. That, it seemed to me, was not only far more worthwhile, it was far more satisfying, too. Also, I was just fucking tired. After a childhood in and out of war, and ten years of my own activism, I was really fucking tired. Tired of fighting with Zionists among the Left. Tired of fighting with union people about the value and importance of direct action. Tired of fighting with anti-oppression activists about the need to remember capitalism. Tired of fighting with communists about the need to recognize oppressions beyond class. Tired of fighting with Leninists about democracy. Tired of fighting with anarchists about the need to respect and connect with church people, union people, NGO people. I was really tired. And I couldn’t understand why I knew so many good folks in so many different movements, from so many different places, and yet they couldn’t seem to come together for anything beyond a single rally.  Lots of protests, lots of organizing, lots of educationals, lots of friends, and still I felt profoundly alone in it all. Baking cookies, dancing with five and six year olds, making up silly songs – it all was so much much life-affirming, so much more nourishing, so much more strenghtening to me.

Thinking about this today because Megan has for the last while being going through the same kind of process – feeling demoralized, tired, looking more to the community-building that sustains rather than the resistance than can be so draining and so fraught with conflict – not the conflict of the struggle, but conflict internally among allies and those who should be allies. It’s a hard fucking place to be, but, I think, something most of us go through a few times in such lives. And keeps bringing me back to the question, why is it so fucking difficult? Why is it so hard to find a place to organize, to fight back, that is both radical and life-affirming?

Union, NGOs and the like are hard for radicals to stay in for long, because there is so much compromise, so much that is tentative, so much replication of shitty liberal processes. And yet in the communities that do resonate with us, there is a never-ending cycle of internal antagonism and accusation and aggression that just kills our enthusiasm to engage. Feels sometimes like there is nowhere we belong. Feels sometimes like all we can do is retreat into the small communities of family and friends and gardens and potlucks and music-making. Life is so much better, so much more joyous and hopeful when we do that. And yet we know there is something missing, because we are activists, and we miss that activism.

Me, after a ten-year retreat into parenting and work and academic musings, I have over the last couple of years felt ready to get back to some more concrete political work. I’ve tried out a few organizations, started tentatively playing at the margins of a few different issues-based networks. But I’m gun-shy about jumping back in until I find something that satisfies the radical in me while providing some sense of community-building and some real human decency.  Meg’s feeling ready to give up and retreat for a while. I’m trying to keep my eyes open for the place that works, but so far not seeing it.

You can be active with the activists or sleeping with the sleepers, Billy Bragg sang to us. If only it were that easy.

Read Full Post »

Tactical Considerations

The apoc-olympics have hit Vancouver, and many good folks have been organizing protest and resistance for a long time leading up to this.  Late last week the real action began, with several opportunities to express our collective rage at this spectacle of capitalism in our communities and the legacy of stolen land, repression, heightened security and debt that the big show leaves in its wake.

We had some awesome actions, my personal fave being the relatively spontaneous gathering on Commercial Drive to prevent the torch relay from parading through the streets in one of Vancouver’s centres of resistance, immediately after another and equally successful action in the downtown eastside. We were a couple of hundred on the Drive, ranging from folks in full-on black-bloc gear to street performers to union folks to high school kids to moms with strollers. And it was awesome.

Then more protest, much discussion, many plans, and a crowd of thousands on the streets of downtown Vancouver on Friday night, our own gathering of resistance to contest the opening ceremonies of capital’s great circus. So good to be back in a throng, so good to see the diversity and scope of this movement, so good to see some fight on that kind of scale once again.

But now it is Saturday morning that is getting all the attention. A protest quite explicitly intended to provide an opportunity for those who wanted more direct action, more direct confrontation, to take to the streets. This was to be a space  for what we call diversity of tactics. Me? I was all for it, and though I stayed home with the family, having previously made the decision together that we weren’t up for that kind of action this time round, I was certainly hoping it would be a success. Whatever that means.

Now, we’ve all seen the news, mainstream and alternative. Some folks in the streets, blocking traffic. Some windows of the corporate sponsors smashed. Lines of cops, arrests, and a few people charged with pretty minor offenses – mischief mostly, and one guy with brandishing a weapon cause he had a bike chain. Whatever.

But I have been thinking about this scene a lot lately, because my reaction is at odds with many others in my community. Because not only can I not see it as any kind of success, but I have also found myself entirely unsympathetic to the calls for support that followed the arrests. Rather, I watched the Saturday action shaking my head, thinking this was a pointless exercise and wondering why spraying-painting cars and smashing a few windows would pass as political action in this context, let alone be in any way helpful. Then, after the cops moved in, I found it really difficult to be responsive to the outrage and calls for solidarity, instead thinking, “OK, there were arrests – what the fuck did you expect?” and “Hmm,  arrests, yes, some take-downs, yes. But nothing like what cops are capable of. They looked menacing with their automatic weapons, to be sure, but actually seem to have had a pretty controlled strategy. The cops are learning about playing to the media. Maybe use a provocateur or two, but generally just wait til one or two people do something stupid and use that as a legitimate excuse to shut them down and haul them off. Smart on the cops. Looks like they won this one.”

So I’m thinking about diversity of tactics. I’m thinking about struggle and what it means to resist across sectors, across actions, across the wide range of engagement we can imagine. And I’m thinking that I am not satisfied with either of the responses I’ve most often heard in the wake of Saturday. I’m thinking that most folks who have commented – whether critical of the action or supportive of it – are missing the crucial point: that tactics flow from strategy.

Voices from the boardrooms of the union and NGO community – Outrageous, criminal behaviour, these hoodlums have no place in our movement and should be ashamed of themselves. We’ll have nothing to do with direct action. This is an embarassment and we’ll be first to condemn it.

Voices from many in my community – Outrageous, the cops are brutal, this was legitimate protest and how dare anyone criticize the brave young women and men who put something fierce behind their words, who made our rage apparent for all to see.  How dare the state criminalize them, how dare the cops arrest them, how dare those others on the left condemn them for their fight.

And y’know what? I don’t care for either response.

I’m no pacifist. I have no objection to actions designed to confront, designed to provoke a reaction. I have no moral judgment against property damage, or even violence for that matter, if the context is right. But that doesn’t mean anything goes in any circumstance. Rather, it means that everything from letter-writing to peaceful protest to blockades to armed resistance may have its place, and how and when we engage depends on who we are, where are, and what we’re trying to achieve. But mostly it means that all of us, no matter where we fall on the action spectrum, recognize that our resistance is part of something broader and seek to respect alternate ways of organizing and struggling.  But all of us, too, need to act with some clarity of intention, and whatever tactics we engage in need to flow from an understanding of the movement overall and a strategy for moving toward our objectives.

Does that mean rules? No. Does that mean proscribed agreement? No. But something that we can actually comprehend as resistance would be nice, wouldn’t it?  I’m missing what was accomplished here, or what anyone even hoped to accomplish. And if I’m missing it, I figure there’s no way in hell the general public is getting it, and no way in hell most of our allies are, either. No, I’m not complaining that breaking some windows discredits the movement as a whole. There is a time for pushing boundaries to shift the political terrain. And I’m not surprised that some people wanted to break windows. There is a time for the unleashing of rage, pure and simple. However, I am finding it really hard to see where the strategy was here, and that is leading me to look at it all and think, “Huh. A couple of people spoiling for a fight, apparently, and nothing more. I can’t see the link to the struggle. And so I can’t muster a hell of alot of support for you now. Sorry.”

I wonder: is this just a ‘grow up and act responsible’ response I am having, indicative of some increasing conservatism? I don’t think it’s that simple. But it is true that to some extent I am less willing to accept the complaining now and more inclined to say, “buck up and take some fucking responsibility’. Not responsibility as in ‘don’t engage in such tactics’. But responsibility to do so when and how it makes sense, with a reasonable notion of one’s overall goals and one’s target and some work to make sure that there’s a point to the action – that it resonates as politics rather than random flailing about for attention. And responsibility, too, for the consequences.

Cops are the armed force of the state. We know this. They are an institution of state violence. That is what they do. So if you choose to confront the cops, and they react with violence, it seems a bit disingenuous to react with surprise and outrage. How did you expect them to respond? They’re cops! I mean, if you confront the state, the state comes in and arrests you and uses some force to do it – that is only to be expected. So, when that happens, you can respond in a different ways. One is what I’m seeing in this instance – “Outrageous, how dare they, we have done nothing wrong and the cops are brutes and nothing more! Demand our freedom, demand that we be recognized as victims of the security state!” Or, alternatively: “Yes, we broke the law. Yes, we engaged in X action. We did so for the following reasons, and we will continue to do so because we believe that confrontation achieves X and we are prepared to face the consequences. We are not victims. We engage with full understanding of what we are doing, with a clear purpose, and we are accountable to our communities and our allies.” That’s a very different response. That’s a response I can weigh, consider, and respect. But I haven’t heard much of it.

Now, to be fair, a statement has been released to try to articulate motivation and strategy for the action on Saturday. And some of the points made line up 100% with my own thoughts on this. Yes, the emphasis on a few broken windows downplays the daily violence – economic and otherwise – experienced by thousands in this city every day. Yes, attacks on property and attacks on human life are very different things, and we need to recognize that. Yes, the security apparatus in this city has indeed made it a city under siege in many respects, and there is a value to confronting that apparatus for this reason alone. But as much as I appreciate this, my questions on the strategic value of it all linger. Perhaps the purpose was indeed to prove that the community will not be cowed by state violence, and that no amount of security can stop resistance. OK. Valid point. But I don’t think that message was sent at all. And in the larger context of the anti-Olympics organizing – i.e  the organization of protest to draw attention to the very real issues in this city and the hugely negative impacts of the Games – did the actions accomplish anything? I’m doubtful. They didn’t draw any more attention to the issues at hand, but instead gave the media a spectacle of criminality rather than helping to highlight and build support for the motivations of resistance. The action didn’t successfully communicate a point of connection with community resistance more generally, the way the Drive gathering did on Friday morning – which included a significant black bloc contingent, by the way. And if what occurred was in whole or in part a response to concrete police provocation – which is critical to make some headway in the media war that follows such actions – then that has not come out even in the participant’s own statements so far as I can see.

So, I’m left wondering what was achieved, really? Did it really prove anything about the community fightback? Or did it simply appear – whatever the motivation of the individuals themselves – that a few people smashed windows just cause they wanted to smash windows? Methinks the latter. And so, while I’m fine with property damage as a tactic in struggle, I’m not really all that convinced that what went down here was anything more than a few people playing at being radical. I may well be wrong in some objective sense. And I am almost certainly wrong in the minds of many of those who were there. But whatever their motivations were, an action needs to build the momentum of struggle, to resist in ways that engender more and greater resistance in future. And individual acts of vandalism just don’t do that. Period. And – giving folks the benefit of the doubt –  actions that intend to be meaningful but only appear as individual acts of vandalism to others? They don’t do it either. They fail as political actions.

I was thinking about all this today as I came up to work on the bus. I was thinking about direct action in the context of Canada, and whether I would react differently in other circumstances or whether I’m just going soft. And the best example I can come up with of direct action that works in this province today is the Encana bomber.

Over the last couple of years someone or some group of someones has been targeting the Encana natural gas pipeline in northern BC, setting off a series of explosions to challenge the corporation’s intrusion in the area. That’s some serious direct action. That’s some serious confrontation with the state and capital. And  I am hugely sympathetic, and I have a hell of a lot of respect for the anti-Encana actions, though I have no idea who’s behind them or what the specific moral or philosophical drivers are for those actions. But the Encana bombings have the following going for them: they are targeted; they are strategic actions that take place in the context of a larger goal and are always directly connected to that goal; each action communicates clearly what it seeks to achieve, why it is directed where it is, who it intends to confront, etc etc etc. That is, the Encana actions are more violent than rock-throwers and spray-painters on any scale. But they also have an identified purpose, a clear target, and take place within a well-articulated strategy. Those bombings succeed as political actions. And for me, that’s all the difference in the world. In other words, it ain’t direct action that’s the problem. It’s the context in which that action takes place, its place within a larger strategy and the accountability taken by the actors.

I’ve been rambling here. And no doubt some who read this are just gonna scream sell-out at me. But so be it. Because diversity of tactics, it seems to me, doesn’t mean anyone anywhere can behave however they want and get my support. It means that I am open to supporting people engaging in a wide range of different ways to further our struggles, and I understand that there is a value to resistance of many forms, organized and spontaneous, peaceful and not. But I don’t see a value to spraypainting peoples’s cars or kicking shit down or getting themselves beat up by cops just because it makes them feel revolutionary. I’ve got no time for it.

Final point: there’s nothing I hate more than the conservative leftism that demands order and regulation and discipline in the movement. That kind of shit did nothing to build freedom. And sadly, that’s what we see from alot of the traditional left after moments like this. But it’s not the point of what I’m saying here, and I have just as much criticism – and perhaps even more – for those who use something like this to isolate radicals generally. But just because we want to respect a diversity of tactics, that doesn’t mean that anything goes. That doesn’t mean there is no responsibility for our actions. That doesn’t mean I have to support everyone who undertakes any action and claims a political motivation for it. I remain convinced that it is indeed possible to respect diversity of tactics while looking for some recognizable strategic logic. But I need to see that the action was in some meaningful way a politics; I need to see more community than  individualism in the way the action unfolds; I need to see acting up rather than acting out. And right now, I’m not finding it.

Oh, and there’s lots of debate on this going round, now, obviously. One such piece, out of an anarcho-communist network in Ontario, can be found here: http://linchpin.ca/English/We-need-mass-movement-not-black-bloc

And from rabbletv, video of comments by David Eby and Chris Shaw.

http://rabble.ca/rabbletv/program-guide/2010/02/features/bc-cilvil-liberties-eby-defends-his-criticism-protesters

http://rabble.ca/rabbletv/program-guide/2010/02/features/chris-shaw-comments-diversity-tactics-analysis-saturday-acti

I’ll try to remember to post more related links in the next little bit.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »