BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Protesting After 9/11: The 'Serious' Debate

  
 
Disco is My Class War
00:33 / 19.11.01
I've been a bit underground lately; think the whole war thing shocked me out of the paradigms I was using to think everything through and i still haven't quite gotten back a full understanding of where it's all at.

But lots of people are talking about the future of anti-corporate activism after 9/11 -- in particular, a lot of neoliberal commentators (and some left ones) are claiming that the movement is over; that the stakes have changed. Freedom, peace, security and protection from violence for the American people (and by extension, the 'West') is far more important than trifling world trade agendas, the continuing decimation of the environment, whatever.

So, what do people think? Is the 'movement' over? perdsonally, I've found the massiv focus on 9/11, terroism and the war on Afghanistan incredibly distracting; it's like suddenly everyone went into crisis mode and forgot everything else existed. This has happened in heaps of left circles as well as out there in the general 'public'. Peace rallies seem to make people feel better, but don't actually change anything. Some terrific actions have happened in Melbourne around the principles of peace: there's a squatted community peace office in the city now, as well as a camp vigil in the middle of the CBD.

And meanwhile, the trade round in Qatar went excellently for the WTO and an agreement ha been made which, while exempting HIV/AIDS drugs from patenting laws so that poor countries can make cheap substitutes, is going to continue the damage of Empire. What do we do? Where to from here? It seems like summit-hopping was destined to end after Genoa anyhow, particularly since the various diverse tools of the protestors have been appropriated into an iconography of 'violence' anyhow, and the tactics of police violence was only really going to increase.

(I have some ideas about where to next, in fact am working on some, but I want to know what folks think. Hope this is enough to kick off a good, crunchy, argumentative thread!)
 
 
01
02:43 / 19.11.01
The movement isn't over by any means. It's just a little more tricky. We all have to turn it up a notch so to speak. Especially mentally.

The rules are different now. Protests will still happen, but will they be effective?
Under some of these new "anti-terror" laws will they be allowed to even happen in the first place? And if they do take place, will they be enlightening to the public or will the sole inevitable anarchist glass smasher totally discredit the entire thing?

While there still is a place for protests, everyone taking part must exercise almost gandhi-esque calm for these actions to be truly effective.

On another front, we have to be unrelenting in getting the message and the facts out there. Websites, letters to newspapers, posters, songs, conversations. Even mental fucking telepathy if need be. And especially now more than ever.
We are going to be branded terrorists. We have to be prepared for it. We have to be better read, better educated, better organized, more resiliant, more patient, and more positive.

Calm, spirit, and perseverance will win the day.

[ 19-11-2001: Message edited by: zerone ]
 
 
Shortfatdyke
07:15 / 19.11.01
surely there's no reason to feel any less pissed off about globalisation/capitalism/'third world' poverty etc? curling up and saying 'whatever, just don't hurt ME!' is probably natural to americans right now but they can't do that forever. if i was living in afghanistan i doubt i'd be worried about the rainforests, but americans still have the space to do that. peace has always been the issue, hasn't it? and that must surely also mean peaceful protest. i won't go on a demo if there's going to be heavy violence. a 'ghandi-esque calm' is most certainly the way. very few people agree with the bombing and more and more folk are asking questions.

[ 19-11-2001: Message edited by: shortfatdyke ]
 
 
Ierne
15:40 / 19.11.01
...a lot of neoliberal commentators (and some left ones) are claiming that the movement is over; that the stakes have changed. Freedom, peace, security and protection from violence for the American people (and by extension, the 'West') is far more important than trifling world trade agendas, the continuing decimation of the environment, whatever. – Rosa d'Ruckus

...curling up and saying 'whatever, just don't hurt ME!' is probably natural to americans right now but they can't do that forever. – shortfatdyke

Hmmm...I dealt with this very same attitude over the weekend. This sort of constant emphasis on 5000 dead people, over and over like a broken record, without bothering to look at the underlying political currents within America that would cause the sort of hatred and rage to make someone do what was done Sept. 11. The idea that perhaps our government is responsible for what happened, in one way or another, is simply impossible and furthermore, in very bad taste to bring up in public.

I actually had someone say to me, "You know, I have relatives who were shut up in internment camps during WW2, and they suffered terribly. But I really think we need to keep an eye on the Arabs here and if camps are the way to do it, so be it. My family's safety is more important than anyone else's rights." She said this with a straight face, and I was so horrified I couldn't speak.

So many New Yorkers are hearing what they think are the vengeful dead whispering in their ears...and it's actually the government -sponsored media machine. What to do about it? I don't know at this point.
 
 
grant
17:53 / 19.11.01
I have a feeling it'll be at least 10 years before protest as we know/knew it will be effective in reaching the mainstream. Maybe five, if current trends in forgetfulness keep up.

But for now, too easily marginalized, and a little too threatening to the mainstream.

UNLESS something big happens that strains US/Coalition credibility. A major incident to hang a protest movement on - a sweatshop blowing up and leaving a toxic crater in some major city, a senator getting arrested by airport security, a politician getting caught reading FBI Carnivore files on an opponent, something like that.

Protest will exist, of course, but it'll have to take on different forms. My gut belief. Less on the street and more in the darkness - monkeywrenching & whatnot.

[ 19-11-2001: Message edited by: grant ]
 
 
cat likes fish
22:36 / 19.11.01
quote: We are going to be branded terrorists. We have to be prepared for it. We have to be better read, better educated, better organized, more resiliant, more patient, and more positive go read howard zinn. this is now and now is the time . now that it's not as cool to speak out do you wont to go and hide? fuck that we stay in the game now more thin ever we must try to reach people. don't tern a blind eye to this. you are being lead astray if you think all the poor crying corporates give a fuck about 5000 lives that wher lost that day. we keep the fight alive becous we are fighting for freedom on the home front. now go read the peoples history of the u.s. and if have allready thin you know history repeats it self. we do have to change haw we are going to do things but don't fall for " buy more if you love your country" the very facked that you are asking this question is a wunderfull thing and i thank you for it but don't be shocked if your question of authority duos not go over well with the masses right now thay are being spoon fed propaganda. big brother is ready to slap you into line becous bygod we love big brother. and after all if you ask why thin you must be a terrorist or in leage with them. the good hard working people of the u.s. love and trust and love there goverment why can't you? i know i do this country is belt apon the blood of the conquered and that blood screams. don't be shocked if you push some one thay push back i think alot of are people are asking why this happind and are finding there own ansers on the internet. more people are thinking now thin ever the lines are the same if you love this country fight for freedom and question authority. don't trade your freedom for safety you will allways lose but you know all this allready so my anser to you is this keep fighting for wuht you believe in,no one else will.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
23:42 / 19.11.01
quote:Originally posted by zerone:

Under some of these new "anti-terror" laws will they be allowed to even happen in the first place? And if they do take place, will they be enlightening to the public or will the sole inevitable anarchist glass smasher totally discredit the entire thing?

See, already I want to argue with you. We've had this discussion before on Barbelith, about violence versus peaceful means. So I don't want to argue with you about that. I think there's still a place for selective property damage, 'hacking' and redirection of capital's material incarnations as props for insurrection.

To me, the terrorism just ups the ante for activists. We'll be called terrorists, sure. But we were already called terrorists before; there just wasn't a conveniently irrational example to demonstrate how 'evil' we were. Now there is. If anything, I think the terrorist attacks -- and particularly the Afghani war, which seems now to have been waged for economic reasons like oil than the 'excuse' of terrorism -- can and may act as a way of demonstrating very clearly how the system works, how Empire works, how the state is more about security than welfare, more about police than care. People can really see this happening. If you don't believe the war should be happening, is it possible to then spread your awareness to how the war links in with everything else? If we're talking activist tactics, that seems to be a good way of turning contemporary events in our favour.

The other thing people have been talking about is 'tactical withdrawal' or 'tactical silence': withdrawing to do activism in local communities, letting go of the desire to make big waves (through summit protests or whatever) so that lots and lots of small ones can take place. It's a good opportunity for reading and talking with people, grounding yourself in a knowledge of indigenous culture/politics (because for me, the fact that the very land I'm on is colonised is the basis of the anti-corporate politics and ideas I have , set up small way-stations for people to learn and think and create and change.

(Now I feel like I'm manifesto'ing, so I'll stop there...)
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
06:06 / 20.11.01
quote: I think there's still a place for selective property damage, 'hacking' and redirection of capital's material incarnations as props for insurrection.
[/QB]
There was a George Monbiot column in the Guardian a while back (ironically and unfortunately enough, a couple of weeks before 911, so he was obviously not drawing any parallels there, before someone misunderstands me and accuses me, or him, of justifying murder) in which he compared the two forms of violence in Islamic tradition- I haven't got it handy, so I can't quote directly, but it went something like- "Hamas" is directed violence, "Hamoq" is random violence (oversimplification, sorry, but it's about the best I can manage right now)- "Hamas" (applied to a Mayday-type situation) would trash a McDonalds as a statement, "Hamoq" would trash the shops on either side 'cos it thought it was fun.
If anyone has this piece, or remembers it better than me, feel free to put me right on this one.
Myself, I'm in two minds about the whole violence thing... I don't like it (but that may well be less an ethical thing and more the fact that I'm not very good at it) but I don't feel it can be entirely ruled out... I'm confused, basically.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:01 / 20.11.01
Stoatie: the Monbiot article you mentioned is archived on his website here. There was a thread about it at the time, albeit not much of one, here. Interestingly, that article seems like almost a refutation of an earlier one Monbiot wrote which can be found here (they don't quite contradict each other, but there's a major shift in emphasis).
 
 
No star here laces
13:03 / 20.11.01
I've a mish-mash of feelings about the whole affair.

Number one, a fair few left commentators whom I used to respect, Monbiot being a good example, have lost all credibility with me for their idiotic kneejerk responses to the crisis.

Number two, the consistent hijacking of peace protests to make points about globalisation has been deeply counterproductive, IMHO, as it makes it look as though the only reason anyone could possibly object to the war is because one objects to our entire society.

Number three, I work with Greenpeace regularly, and have been to a fair few debates recently where they have had representation. I have to say that I think their stance has been extremely admirable, and to me, points the way forward for 'the movement'.

Greenpeace insist that they are an environmental pressure group. It is not their function to provide a reasoned compromise, it is their function to always push the environmental angle - it's up to those who hold the power to agree a compromise.

And that's where I see the movement as being useful and practical in the world. It's not to try and acheive the instant overthrow of capitalism - no one believes that will happen. It's not to expound dogmatic and unpopular views a la the SWP. It's actually just to stick up for the oppressed people, the people with no voice, no matter what.

Not anti-capitalists, just on the side of the weak.
 
 
rizla mission
14:36 / 20.11.01
my 2 cents:

As far as I'm concerned, 9/11 and it's aftermath make anti-globalisation (or whatever) protests more valid than ever -

you could make a good argument that the terrorist attacks were indirectly caused by the very Western imperialism / fucking over of 3rd world countries that the 'movement' has been campaigning against.

Also, I think it's fairly obvious that following 9/11, government & public opinions are both going to take a big swing towards the right - lot's of progressive legislation that might have been passed is now probably going to be forgotten, and even more government time is going to be spent on militarism, xenophobia and so forth. Therefore = protesting needed more than ever before!

And that's without even mentioning all the scary draconian laws and civil liberties infringements we seem to be hearing about every day, AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO ABOUT THEM.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
22:19 / 20.11.01
quote:Originally posted by Rosa d'Ruckus:
If anything, I think the terrorist attacks -- and particularly the Afghani war, which seems now to have been waged for economic reasons like oil than the 'excuse' of terrorism -- can and may act as a way of demonstrating very clearly how the system works, how Empire works, how the state is more about security than welfare, more about police than care. People can really see this happening. If you don't believe the war should be happening, is it possible to then spread your awareness to how the war links in with everything else? If we're talking activist tactics, that seems to be a good way of turning contemporary events in our favour.

I think you're absolutely right about this – that spreading awareness of the wider implications behind the war in Afghanistan is not only possible but also hugely important and may be one of the few ‘good’ things to come out of the whole mess of the last two months. At the London demo on Sunday, I was incredibly heartened by the extent to which many of the speeches made, and even many of the banners and placards on display, sought to put the war in Afghanistan into a highly informative context. Contrary to the impression given by both the media's hawks and guys like the Leninist who was handing out leaflets that started "just saying 'no to war' is a useless hoax", there was a high level of both articulacy and knowledge displayed by people representing a wide range of stances against the war.

And this is what these demos can really achieve: I suspect there's a lot of people who felt compelled to attend peace demonstrations because some gut instinct - conscience even - told them that it was wrong to bomb the shit out of a country because we suspect that the guys who might have been responsible for 9/11 might be living there, somewhere. Or who are just pacifists on principle - the point is, if they're anything like me, they will have been spectacularly ill-informed about the history of Afghanistan, the history of the Middle East in general, hell, the recent history of the world in general, in terms of the way in which America has interacted with it in particular. I’m still ignorant – but I’m marginally less ignorant about these issues than I was two months ago. The not-quite-average member of the British public, if s/he watches Newsnight or reads a half-decent newspaper, is marginally less ignorant about these issues than s/he was two months ago. If s/he finds out about Indymedia, or Znet, or another good source of the kind of info that doesn’t make it into the corporate media, even better.

If both the general public's awareness and the awareness of activists (or people who were already 'politicised') is increased - both in terms of specifics like the nature of the Israel/Palestine conflict, the history of US foreign policy, etc - and in general terms, as you say, Rosa, about the way power works, and what really motivates our governments – if enough people become aware of all this, then even once the peace movement dies down, a new movement will carry on – if ‘movement’ is indeed the correct word.

Funnily enough, none other than George Monbiot mentions the exact same thing in his Guardian column today:

quote:It soon became obvious that the crowd was thinking about more than just Afghanistan. To thunderous cheers, speaker after speaker linked the war to the other means by which the rich world persuades the poor world to do as it bids: namely its power over bodies such as the World Trade Organisation. It is not only the peace movement which hasn't gone away, it seems, but also the anti-corporate movement, whose death has been so widely proclaimed since September 11. Just as the peace campaigners have drawn strength from the internationalists, the internationalists are building on the peace campaign. The battle against corporate power has resumed.

Tyrone: just read your post - how exactly do you think George Monbiot's response has been "idiotic" and "kneejerk"? I've actually found that his columns have been some of the best stuff written, certianly in the mainstream UK press, about the war...

And re: "consistent hijacking of peace protests to make points about globalisation" - I really don't think you can separate out the two. See above: the answers to the pro-war arguments are in part based on a knowledge of what ‘globalisation’ has actually entailed for the past however many years that leaves little option but to adopt a position which the press and government call ‘anti-globalisation’. You seem to be buying into the media myth of people who are anti-capitalists for the sake of it - while such people may exist, they are in the minority – but more importantly, "standing up for the weak" is *exactly* what the vast majority of people labelled as anti-capitalists, anti-globalisation, anarchists, whatever, are trying to do.

Not sure I’ve expressed what I’m getting at here particularly well… tired. Will return.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
22:33 / 20.11.01
I actually see this as a huge opportunity, quite frankly. In kind of a new-age way, the whole world was knocked off balance by 911. I will say that here in the States protests have been VERY quiet and largely absent but I'm not seeing that in other parts of the world.

The immediate reaction is what you're talking about, Rosa Delovely, but anyone who wants to look into what CAUSED these events can come to the conclusion that ignoring the poor brown people in favor of rich corporate interests is a major, major factor. ANd that's what I'm talking about when I say "the world has been knocked off balance."

I look at what happened, essentially as the U.S.' own karma for our actions in the past. I know I'm not the only person to see it this way. I actually think this whole thing puts a giant shining light on the issues of what corporate globalization does and says "LOOK!"

Certainly the "terrorist" label will apply, but I do think there's a major opportunity to demonstrate to the average citizen what exactly has been going on.
 
 
01
00:10 / 21.11.01
One of the most awe-inspiring images I have seen out of any of these demonstrations was that of the people ripping down the wall at the FTAA Summit in Quebec City.

Now lets take this snapshot and pretend it happened after Sept 11. In my mind, it lacks the same juice. Why? Because the rules have changed. It's different for me, and I support the cause. Will it sway, joe guy-trying-to-make-up-his-mind?

There still is a place for this kind action, but we must be very selective about the when and the how. Right now, people are sick of violence, sick of hearing about it and sick of seeing it 24 hours on TV. I know I am. If we want to really win this thing,we have be extremely responsive the psycho-social climate.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
00:38 / 21.11.01
quote:Originally posted by Tyrone Mushylaces:
Number two, the consistent hijacking of peace protests to make points about globalisation has been deeply counterproductive, IMHO, as it makes it look as though the only reason anyone could possibly object to the war is because one objects to our entire society.

Let me ask you, Tyrone, and please post at length on this -- how do you see the connections between the war and the 'whole society'? Do you see any connection? Don't you think, if there is a connection, that the war -- which is visible and something people are deeply concerned about -- can lead people to a better understanding of the world?

This is my logic of connection... I've been reading Hardt and Negri's Empire recently, and they have an excellent analysis of the way that war -- or security and the police, really -- now function globally in relation to the globalised economy and sovereignty. This also explains why a discourse on 'human rights' is not a sufficient explanation of why there should be no war.

So this is my extremely bad interpretation of the argument -- which suffers from not having the book to hand. Hardt and Negri argue that what they call 'Empire' is a conglomeration of transnational and global decision-making/regulatory bodies which speak for, or are supposed to represent, ideals like democracy, human rights, peace, freedom, universal prosperity. These bodies are the WTO, IMF, World Bank, the UN, etc, and of course the US government. Howver there is always an 'enemy' of those ideals which needs to be put down -- internally, inside the nation-state, and externally, in the Middle East or wherever -- which enables a permanent state of 'exception'. This state of 'exception' allows for the police to be mobilised constantly -- in the Gulf War, in Kosovo, in Afghanistan now, as well as in Prague, Genoa, off the shores of Western Australia, in 'Western countries'.

The constant state of exception in which human rights must be sacrificed for the greater good conceals about three things:

a) the mobilisation of the police for the protection of capital and property (look at how 'suddenly' the US is talking about a possible oil pipeline through Afghanistan);

b) the whole ontology of who counts as 'human' and who has 'rights' -- people who are without passports or papers or official citizenship are not human and therefore have no rights to speak of, which thus excludes them from the offers of prosperity and democracy and freedom by global bodies; and

c) the purpose of the state, which is no longer to protect and enrich the lives of its constituents but to act as security against bodies for the protection of free-floating capital. Hence, money can move anywhere and is totally unregulated, but our bodies are increasingly relulated and controlled.

Does this make sense? I am not interested in hitting people over the head; the most important think I think I can do at the moment as an activist is to try to faciliate people making connections...

quote:Number three, I work with Greenpeace regularly, and have been to a fair few debates recently where they have had representation. I have to say that I think their stance has been extremely admirable, and to me, points the way forward for 'the movement'

Greenpeace insist that they are an environmental pressure group. It is not their function to provide a reasoned compromise, it is their function to always push the environmental angle - it's up to those who hold the power to agree a compromise.

But when the very way the power works is problematic, don't you think people should be thinking about that, and deciding why and how it's all wrong? Frankly, I have no respect for Greenpeace, particularly now: they're very good at media stuntdom and did some great work in the eighties, but environmental destruction is just onen of a huge number of important things to be fighting. <ratbag> And, y'know, Greenpeace appeal to nice white liberal kids whose idea of activism is throwing money at the problem and going on with their consumerist lives.</ratbag>

quote:
Not anti-capitalists, just on the side of the weak.

Right. Which explains why most of the 'weak' -- in non-Western countries, at least -- are anti-capitalists.
 
 
No star here laces
08:34 / 21.11.01
Rosa, my comments come from a practical standpoint.

I think that the movement needs a hot, hard, pragmatism enema. People need to think about what they can actually acheive, what their role is in the world that exists here now, instead of what they'd do if they had a blank slate.

I think Empire tackles this (but further in than I've read so far) but the main difficulty I have with the movement is that there is a lack of thinking about how to actually effect change - how to get from here to there. How our protesting, thinking, reading etc. is actually going to cause positive changes in the world.

And I'm sorry, but I just do not believe there will be a revolution in my lifetime. And I can't support a revolution that doesn't involve majority support, which is doubly unlikely.

So although I absolutely buy into the theory that the war is a result of Empire's need for conflict and the maintenance of a constant state of emergency, I would prefer to ignore this fact when demonstrating my opposition to the war because it doesn't make good political and PR sense to do so.

If our governments believe that 'ordinary' 'respectable' voters are against the bombing, it is infinitely more powerful than them thinking all the usual malcontents have grabbed hold of the latest live issue to push their personal agendas. Similarly, the media are interested in successful, down-to-earth people that the public have empathy with, and if you can demonstrate that you, as one of these people, hold anti-establishment views, then those views hold currency. If you are outside of the society that people perceive themselves to be in, they have no empathy with you, and your views are meaningless.

Now you may have issues with Greenpeace from a purist ideological standpoint, but you can't argue with their success at keeping their agenda in the public eye, or at actually acheiving their aims.

And the reason they've been able to do this is because a pressure group is acceptable to empire as it doesn't pose a direct challenge in the way that an 'alternative system' does. Scare quotes because the movement has not, and will never agree on an 'alternative system' to capitalism, it being too ridden with the traditional schisms of the left.

Change will come, I believe that, but it will come slowly. To speed the pace of change you need as many people as possible working to acheive actual change. As we've seen from 911, direct conflict and aggression do not lead to compromise, they lead to consolidation and strengthening of extremes. Confronting capitalism strengthens it, if you do it in a way that can be marginalised. And, like it or not, the movement has been marginalised by 911, particularly by the left commentators insistence on hammering the anti-globalisation agenda at an innappropriate time for the public mood.

We live in the world of media manipulation, of the society of control, the place where public opinion counts. And if we don't think about these things we will never acheive anything in this world.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
08:44 / 21.11.01
quote:Originally posted by Flyboy:
Interestingly, that article seems like almost a refutation of an earlier one Monbiot wrote which can be found here (they don't quite contradict each other, but there's a major shift in emphasis).
yeah, I noticed that at the time... Monbiot seems to have been shifting over the last few months, slowly changing/evolving his opinion... which I kind of like, because it means he's a real person, and not just a voice for a certain type of viewpoint... (he's willing to accept that stuff may make him change his mind, and that's gotta be a good thing) one day, this may make me hate him. But I'll still respect the guy.
 
 
BioDynamo
13:59 / 21.11.01
I actually thought the cycle of protest had peaked with Seattle. I figured: 'Oh well, that was the Big One, now it'll be downhill, and I'll have missed the whole show'.

And, maybe I was right.

Oh, for us here in Europe, Prague was big and successful, in a way. In a way I was not happy about, at the time, but which led to some intense thought which I'm happy about. The fear of violence ruined the IMF/WB-meeting, and a large enough part of 'civil society' showed up to back the violence. Scary, but it worked. However, it made a lot of the people participating really pissed off at the violents, and shifted around my personal attention from non-violent non-confrontative protest to 'non-violent' theatrical confrontation.

Then there was Gothenburg, even bigger, in some ways, than Prague: happier and scarier at the same time. More police repression in Sweden, of all places, than in the Czech Republic. Gunshots.

Then Genova, biggest of them all. Some said it was a peak, that the first time the police killed a protester in this cycle was a turning point. No, it was just the police going in their natural direction of increased repression, partly legitimized by the use of weapons by the Swedish police.

Maybe Seattle was the peak, and these later events the crashing of the wave.

Then, logically, somehow, comes 9/11, a re-focusing of attention on the internal conflicts of Empire(? I haven't actually read Negri/Hardt, shame on me), religious-fundamentalist terror versus nationalist-market-fundamentalist terror.

Yeah, 'we' are not as strongly in focus anymore, except as targets of repression, where we are very much in the centre.

But hey, did we expect anything else?

This is the way it has gone before, and anyone who didn't have the sense to dig a bolt-hole or buy a plane ticket to Cuba hasn't understood history.

This is not to say that we should stop protesting. Here in Finland we'll have some fun this Independence Day, 6.12. It's going to be more provocative than any protest we've had here so far, and (I hope) non-violent.

The wave might have peaked in Seattle, but the crash of the wave is still going on, and will go on for some time. We're taking beatings, yeah, but this thing will go on for some time still. So as long as you can, dig in. Squat a place, and keep it until the next cycle. Get elected into your local city council and do propaganda from a position of relative immunity. Go to Chiapas. Get a salaried position in some nice NGO, or at a university. Or do the real revolutionary hard core thing (which I won't), keep it real, radicalise the struggle and spend your time waiting for the next cycle of struggles in jail or in hiding. There will be a next time, even if the Revolution doesn't get here this time around. And we need people preparing for that, right?

Hmm. You should, by the way, be doing the above things WHILE radicalising the struggle, so when they pounce on you, you'll have your defences ready.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe this thing will kick off into a global upsurgence of grass roots mobilisations against the power. But it doesn't hurt to prepare for other eventualities.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
01:25 / 22.11.01
Tyrone, you and I are coming from completely different places on this, which is one reason why arguing with you is always fun. I think you're absolutely wrong to claim that people within 'the movement' aren't thinking of ways that change can be effected on a small basis, a realistic basis, right now. Then again, I'm starting to feel that the whole idea of 'the movement' is misleading, because so many diverse communities of people exist -- many of whom we don't know anything about, because they don't get any media. I am sceptical of the possibilitiy of a 'revolution' happening within my lifetime as well. But things only seem to get worse; the populations of urban poor in Europe and the USA are huge, and they ain't happy.

And I also agree that the 'round' of big summit protests is over, obviously. New tactics are needed.
 
 
No star here laces
07:25 / 22.11.01
I can't help feeling that the big triumph of the last couple of years was that for a short period of time (from seattle up until 911 probably) protesting and being politically radical was actually sexy.

Subcommandante Marcos, No Logo, Wombles - all the cliches, although maybe they were oversimplifying many issues, were hugely important because they made people who weren't involved, want to be involved.

And when you say 'new tactics are needed' I think you're absolutely right - that momentum and sexiness cannot be lost - it's vital that radicalism doesn't descend into the 'worthy yet dull' image it had in the '80s.

Radicals and leftists have to be visible, and visible in an aspirational way. And this is where 9/11 poses a real problem - it would be very easy to let the public image of 'the movement' founder on the rock of principle, to use a tortuous metaphor. The principled, logical thing to do is to carry on as before, but I think that would be fatal.

I do think that a really major step forward would be to confront corporations in the places where they are causing harm, rather than at their head offices. This makes it far harder to criticise the protesters as it means you have to see them in the context of what they are protesting about. Again, this is a trick Greenpeace are masters of - you don't catch them protesting outside Shell or Unilever unless they've already been to Brent Spar, or GM maize fields, or whatever.

Protesters will need to be more committed and get themselves down to the EPZs or the Favelas - the places where the victims are, as this prevents them being labelled as spoiled kids or malcontents. And to me, this requires more organisation than the movement currently has.

Now I know - different views, school of fish, organic change agents yada yada. Bollocks. The 90s is over and I personally won't swallow that crap any more. Some things require structure to acheive, and I now firmly believe that there needs to be a more organised, NGO aspect to anti-capitalist protest. ergo this 'protecting the weak' idea, which allows this kind of activity to go on in a more politically neutral manner.

Of course I wouldn't be suggesting the end of the more free-form radical side of the movement - just that you need both elements.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:01 / 22.11.01
quote:Originally posted by Lyra Lovelaces:
Subcommandante Marcos, No Logo, Wombles - all the cliches, although maybe they were oversimplifying many issues, were hugely important because they made people who weren't involved, want to be involved.

Radicals and leftists have to be visible, and visible in an aspirational way.

etc

I have lost a long reply to this today - teach me not to safe things in Word. A few things, though:

1. Whilst No Logo, Marcos and the Wombles may have profited from an awareness of the power of a strong visual image in communicating a message, I don't think any of them were *trying* to be sexy as an end in itself. Nor do I think (with the possible exception of the wombles, but I don't know enough about them) that they're guilty of oversimplifying issues, or of sacrificing content for image - the mainstream media did that for them - and unless you back this up with specifics, you won't convince me otherwise.

Which in turn leads to:

2. If people go to protests or take an interest in radical politics for the *first* time because it's sexy/trendy/cool to do so, that's great. If however this remains their only motivation for doing so, they won't get much done and they won't keep that interest for very long.

This is not entirely unconnected from:

3. What on earth do you mean by "aspirational"? Surely the concept of aspirational appeal, as it is most frequently used in advertising etc, is almost entirely antithetical to the aims of the so-called movement, and radical politics in general.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
06:21 / 25.11.01
quote:I do think that a really major step forward would be to confront corporations in the places where they are causing harm, rather than at their head offices. This makes it far harder to criticise the protesters as it means you have to see them in the context of what they are protesting about. Again, this is a trick Greenpeace are masters of - you don't catch them protesting outside Shell or Unilever unless they've already been to Brent Spar, or GM maize fields, or whatever.

When you evaluate everything by how much media coverage there's been of it, you tend to miss out on a lot. Ie, constant and tireless activism by the Ogoni people against Shell in Nigeria; GM crop-burning in France, Brazil, Central America and a host of other places; activism in India around the dam project; unionising and labour rights activism in free trade zones and sweatships, etc etc etc. There are limits.

Also, it's a bit difficult to specify exactly *where* harm is being caused, by corporations and other bodies, when it appears to be everywhere, working in different ways for different managerial goals. Which means that in some ways, due to the immense cost of travel, lots of people are constrained to work in and for their local communities.

Flyboy said: "2. If people go to protests or take an interest in radical politics for the *first* time because it's sexy/trendy/cool to do so, that's great. If however this remains their only motivation for doing so, they won't get much done and they won't keep that interest for very long."

Doesn't it depend on what exactly is 'sexy', here? Trendiness in terms of image really doesn't last long, in fact it has a very predictable shelf life. 'Sexiness' in terms of really discovering a more fun, freeing, responsible way to live (and dedicating oneself to the constant seeking out of that kind of life, which you could also call 'labour' in a Hardt and Negri sense) lasts a lot longer, and tends to constantly reinvent itself, I'd argue. But it does require far more engagement with the world and reality than wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt.

Anyhow, feels like this thread is getting totally dominated by me (and Flyboy) arguing with Lyra, so let's go back to something Rizla said a few days ago:

"And that's without even mentioning all the scary draconian laws and civil liberties infringements we seem to be hearing about every day, AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO ABOUT THEM. "

Yes. What are we going to do about them?
 
 
Madoshi Grey
20:05 / 25.11.01
So when are we going to march on Washington? Are there any plans for this going on anywhere? Should we organize it ourselves? I've been to a few peace protests lately, but they were mostly on college campuses, which to me seems to be a big waste of time, making protestors feel good without actually accomplishing anything.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
20:10 / 25.11.01
can't speak for the US contingent, but myself, flyboy, kooky, nakedflame, stoatie, sleazenation and angel were all present and correct for the demo in the heart of fashionable London. it was ace.

i've been meaning to post to this thread - will do. when i'm not so...

y'know...
 
 
autopilot disengaged
20:12 / 25.11.01
ooh - and lozt. too.

(sorry.)
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:26 / 26.11.01
Don't forget Bill (whatever his surname is now) and Deva.

(Sorry, this feels like thread-rot, but I thought we'd better not leave 'em out...)
 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:26 / 26.11.01
funnily enough, i'd just realised i'd missed bill out - was coming back to shove him back in the throng with humorous disclaimer. in my defence, he did go early...
 
 
No star here laces
09:26 / 26.11.01
quote:Originally posted by Flyboy:
1. Whilst No Logo, Marcos and the Wombles may have profited from an awareness of the power of a strong visual image in communicating a message, I don't think any of them were *trying* to be sexy as an end in itself. Nor do I think (with the possible exception of the wombles, but I don't know enough about them) that they're guilty of oversimplifying issues

You misunderstand me - I didn't mean that was their intent, I meant that was the effect of media coverage of their actions.

quote:2. If people go to protests or take an interest in radical politics for the *first* time because it's sexy/trendy/cool to do so, that's great. If however this remains their only motivation for doing so, they won't get much done and they won't keep that interest for very long.

Yes, well, if you know of any other way to hook people in to something, then please let me know. As far as I'm concerned, the majority of people don't sit down one day, bone up on all possible political viewpoints and then pick the one they think is most rational. What people tend to do is pick something for all the wrong reasons and then gather various bits of info to back themselves up.

If anyone on this board can honestly say that they did not first become interested in radical politics because they thought it was kind of countercultural and rebellious then I'll eat my pronouns or something.

That's what the 'oversimplification' point is all about. Oversimplification is necessary as an entry point. That's a basic priniciple of education (and advertising).

quote:3. What on earth do you mean by "aspirational"? Surely the concept of aspirational appeal, as it is most frequently used in advertising etc, is almost entirely antithetical to the aims of the so-called movement, and radical politics in general.

And that, if I may say so, is a thoroughly kneejerk reaction.

I approach this like so:

1. The only political change worth having is a democratic one.

2. The majority of people in western nations are happy with capitalism.

3. Western nations have the temporal power so change in western nations must come first.

4. If you believe there is a better alternative to capitalism, you should help that come about.

5. In order to do that one needs to convince the majority that this is the right thing to do.

6. Therefore it is necessary to make your viewpoint appealing and aspirational to the populace as a whole.

Currently radical left politics is anything but aspirational. Your average person probably thinks that the fall of capitalism would mean, for them, grinding poverty, oppression by a totalitarian regime, the loss of their precious car and rioting in the streets.

So you can't really blame that person for supporting the current regime if we're not giving them any kind of alternative they can believe in.
 
 
Perfect Tommy
10:08 / 26.11.01
quote:Originally posted by Rosa d'Ruckus:
"And that's without even mentioning all the scary draconian laws and civil liberties infringements we seem to be hearing about every day, AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO ABOUT THEM."

Yes. What are we going to do about them?
I don't know.

I remember reading a link by Mystery Gypt, I believe, about national ID cards. And I thought to myself, "Maaaan, if those become mandatory, I'll totally refuse to get one even if it gets me thrown in jail." And I was very slightly proud of myself, and then I realized:

a) If such a card became mandatory, which is unlikely, I honestly doubt anyone would get jailed.

b) If by some stretch of the imagination that scenario came true, here's what would happen-- Me: "Hey pigs, throw me in your stinkin' prison!" Them: "'Kay." *CLANG* --and nothing is accomplished.

I mean, I'll still do it and all, but it's sort of stupid.

My mom wasn't the kind of hippie who protested or chained herself to things--she was the kind who sort of hung out and was mellow. I've missed out on valuable protest training which could be serving me today. Is there a handbook on becoming an activist, and the scary thing is I'm at least 65% serious about the question?

[ 26-11-2001: Message edited by: doubting thomas ]
 
 
Jackie Susann
07:20 / 29.11.01
There is, indeed, a book called The Activist Handbook, but I don't think it's really what you're after. It's about far less spectacular stuff than getting thrown in jail for your cause - how to start and maintain groups, how to lobby, maybe a little bit about direct action. In general, for obvious reasons, the best 'activist training' is to get involved with a group or groups who are doing the sort of stuff you want to do (in terms of issues, objectives or methods).

Or trythis.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:54 / 01.12.01
Fuck the identity cards... let's get pissed off about losing the right to trial by jury first. Apart from anything else, on a practical level, that's a fuck of a lot harder to sidestep. AND by removing the role of the public in the legal process, it's opening the door to a whole ton of scary shit...
And (vaguely back on-topic) the thing that has crippled "the movement" more than anything else IMHO has been arguing over points of doctrine... can't we all agree on the things we DO agree on, get the important shit out of the way and then, when we've actually reached a point where our opinion "counts", then argue the technicalities?
Sorry. I'm drunk and tired, and I have to meet my mum for lunch tomorrow. I'm grumpy and not making much sense. Sorry.
 
 
BioDynamo
13:38 / 10.12.01
I'm putting this here instead of in a thread of it's own.. 'cause I don't really think anyone is interested in what a few hundred funny people get up to in Finland.

But anyway, I was amazed at the energy of people here. It was incredible. Oh, and non-violent. Better than I could ever have imagined.

Text below is not written by me, but is an exellent report, written by someone who was not there.

Lots of references to street names probably won't mean anything to you but I haven't had the time to write a report of my own yet.

**************

Party of uninvited guests 6.12.2001 - a short English summary

Sixth party of the uninvited guests, organised in Helsinki, Finland
against independence day banquet held in president's palace
became the propably the first time since the general strike of 1956 when
a mounted police attacked a demonstration in Finland.

Cops raided one of the buses travelling from Turku already on its
way to Helsinki. March gathered in the Rautatientori square,
and splitted to three blocs - green, lilac and pink, in order to
surround president's palace from three directions and to blockade
travelling of the ruling class to the banquet. Political took up slightly
different political demands for example lilac bloc demanded
end to deportations and rights to immigrants.

Police tried to block all of the groups to Rautatientori square, but
all three blocs managed to pass police lines and proceed.
Cops managed to attack lilac and pink bloc, trashing windows
and stealing keys from the sound system cars.
Green block managed to leave without trouble,
but two other blocs had to proceed without sound systems. Lilac and
Pink bloc united later on the way, and marched through Kaisaniemenkatu
street and Liisankatu street to Mariankatu street, in order to block
way to palace from northside, where Green block aimed to block
Pohjoisesplanadi street in the southside. Demonstrators did not managed
to block Aleksanterinkatu street in the middle, but blocking two out
of the three ways already considerably disturbed the party.

In Meritullintori, east side of the palace, 10 mounted polices assaulted
pink bloc which had to retreat retreat to Mariankatu. Mounted
police attacked also Green block in the southside of the palace.
However it seems like aim of the police was not to injure but to scare
people,
since no-one got seriously hurt.

Some taxis speeded up towards demonstrators, and
some people were about to get seriously hurt. As a result,
some demonstrators attacked taxis and some scuffles with
the drivers followed. Police claims to have arrested people
who damaged taxis, but according to eyewitnesses police was nowhere
around when scuffles with taxis took place, so they just randomly
picked few dozen persons. Most of the demostrators had strictly
Gandhist line that point was not to stop prevent from participating the
banquet but to send a strong symbolical message, thus many
participators who stepped out from taxis and decided to walk were
let through the lines of demonstrators. Yet there is no information
about charges against demonstrators, last year there were some
outrageous felony charges which were later dropped.

Demonstrators managed to block some streets up to half an hours.
After police had cleared the streets, all three blocs united again and
marched back to Rautatientori square. I have not seen a single
good estimation about number of demonstrators, I am sure 450-500
mentioned by police and mainstream media is underestimation since
last year it was twice more.

Prisoner solidarity demonstration had been decided beforehand, since
everyone expected that arrests will take place. Some 20 persons gathered
in Kisahalli police station in order to demand liberation of the prisoners.
Suddendly special anti-riot force Jouha showed up and arrested
6-7 of the demonstrators. Jouha was dressed with ski masks without
helmets in order to avoid personal identification,
after militant police riots in Black & Green days of 1998,
when police attacked peaceful anarchists and destroyed their
property, police was ordered never to wear ski masks without helmets but
seems
like these police orders may be scrapped as any other regulation
on the use of force by the state against demonstrations.

Mainstream media either ignored this biggest civil disobedience
action in Finland for decades, or distributed outrageous
mudslinging. For example biggest Finnish paper, Helsingin Sanomat
claimed that demonstrators had tried to seize guns from police
officers. Most of the participators who wrote to indymedia
seem to be content of the action which was clearly
more radical than any of the previous
ones, but many are also very shocked for the police violence.

Finnish indymedia has published few pictures at http://www.vaikuttava.net/article.php?sid=1507&mode=thread&order=0
and announces that more is to come. Unfortunately
no cool horse pix yet.
 
 
BioDynamo
13:40 / 10.12.01
Oh, if anyone is interested, the declaration of the whole event (Party of uninvited guests, or whatever it gets called in english..) can be found here.
 
  
Add Your Reply