Anti-War March Organizers Express Solidarity and Respect for Diverse Tactics
Shortly after the RNC, Francisco Gonzalez, a guest blogger for Engage Minnesota wrote an article called “March organizers failed to protect message.” http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2008/09/08/march-organizers-failed-...
This article was later posted on the Twin Cities Daily Planet website. As a member of the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War, I felt compelled to respond. Gonzalez suggested that those who organized the permitted anti-war march on the opening day of the RNC should have tried to prevent “unruly elements” from engaging in direct action or should have denounced those who did the next day. He suggested that our message was stolen by “a few who acted mindlessly” and that we should have stood “side by side with police” to denounce them.
I was troubled but not surprised by this analysis. Blaming fellow protesters for police violence and judging those whose tactics involve risking arrest have often marked the aftermath of mass actions. This pattern of backstabbing and finger pointing has left movements fractured and demoralized. In St. Paul, we deliberately tried to create something different: principles that would allow us to focus our energy on the injustice we oppose, engage in the tactics we feel are most strategic, and do so in a way that would build our capacity and inspire unity, even among activists of differing ideological backgrounds, experience levels, and philosophies.
As someone who helped organize the permitted march on September 1, I want to be completely clear about how we anticipated our demonstration interacting with other protests that day. We were fully aware of well developed plans to engage in direct action and civil disobedience on September 1. We were not surprised this took place and do not agree that our message was “highjacked” by anarchists. We worked in coalition with several groups including the RNC Welcoming Committee to establish principles of unity that would prevent counter-productive, “good protester-bad protester” labeling. The “St. Paul Principles” we established included a respect for a diversity of tactics (not just legal, permitted ones) and we agreed that different tactics would be separated by time or space so that we could complement, rather than interfere with each other.
This was achieved with great success. On September 1st, 30,000 people from a diversity of backgrounds, income levels, ages, and struggles marched together under one banner: U.S. Out of Iraq Now; Money for Human Needs Not War; Peace, Justice, and Equality for All. Also on September 1st, a significant number of people chose to directly confront those most responsible for war, poverty, and injustice by engaging in blockades and other methods of direct action. Organizers of the permitted march supported their decision to do so. Many of us believe that elements of civil disobedience and direct action are appropriate and necessary for any movement desiring to mount a serious challenge to the violent, imperialist forces that are exploiting and destroying the lives of millions.
In his article, Gonzalez claimed that the RNC Welcoming Committee's website indicated a desire for “violent confrontation.” Anyone who was present in downtown St. Paul during the RNC could see that it was the police who were constantly unleashing violent confrontation. Who was it that brought riot gear, tasers, rubber bullets, batons, and chemical weapons to the streets of St. Paul? It was the police, whose only mission was to protect power and privilege and crush anyone in their path.
The very use of the word "violence" to describe the actions of protesters in the face of the police state we witnessed is ridiculous. Pepper spraying a girl repeatedly in the face after she attempted to hand a flower to a police officer is violence. A broken Macy's window is not. And even though some activists don't prefer property damage as a tactic, maintaining some amount of perspective is important. What is a broken window compared to a million Iraqis killed, or entire cities destroyed by the U.S. occupation forces? A whole lot of windows get broken when the U.S. drops bombs. Which is the bigger concern? Which is a real reason to be pointing fingers?
I and other members of the Coalition to March on the RNC stand in solidarity with all who spoke and acted against the Republican agenda in St. Paul. We didn't denounce each other before the action and we aren't going to start now. And we would never, EVER stand with the police at a press conference and denounce our partners in the struggle. The very suggestion is absurd after the systematic way the police attempted to violently shut down ALL dissent at the RNC. On September 4th, members of our coalition were shot at close range with rubber bullets while holding an anti-war banner, tackled to the ground while chanting for an end to the war, and attacked with pepper spray while holding signs demanding peace and justice. This occurred in response to a large crowd who dared to march after a city-issued permit had expired.
We demand that all charges be dropped against the 818 people who were arrested September 1-4, including the RNC 8, who are unjustly accused of “conspiracy to riot in furtherance of terrorism.” The only terrorists in St. Paul that week were the police and the war criminals in the Xcel Center.
Anyone professing a sincere commitment to justice should make an effort to hold police accountable for their crimes at the RNC and to end the criminal policies of war and oppression waged by the U.S. around the world, rather than criticize march organizers for failing to shun our fellow activists. We are committed to building and strengthening a diverse movement for just social change. We are not interested in betraying and judging one another.
Anyone waiting for us to do so or advocating such hypocrisy needs to wake up. The most dangerous people in St. Paul that week were the delegates to the Republican National Convention, as well as the army of mercenaries who attacked people on their behalf. Anyone who opposes violence and property destruction should join us in opposing current U.S. policy as a top priority. Our military, police, and anti-immigration agents engage in violence and property destruction every day for the benefit of wealthy politicians and corporate executives. The system works against us. We must work together, in diverse ways, against it.
-Katrina Plotz
Anti-War Committee
Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War
Comments
inspiring
This is great, Katrina. Thank you for putting this out there. It's so important for us to work together in solidarity, and to work together to point out who our real enemies are.
SOLIDARITY WITH DIVERSE TACTICS
right on TO kATRINA FOR HER COMMENTARY!
Those of us who have been subjected to and/or witnessed ACTUAL PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AGAINST HUMAN BEINGS find it obscene to call 3 broken windows at the RNC protests "violence". It insults those of us who directly know what ACTUAL violence is TO EQUATE real violence against people with the broken windows at the RNC (which by the way, may well have been at least in terms of the Macy's window BROKEN BY AN UNDERCOVER POLICE OFFICER, according to witnesses--in order to give cops a justification for violence).
To say the ir "message was stolen" by anarchists is to remain in denial of how corporate media operates. How often do local media REPORT ON ANY ACTIVITIES OF THE PEACE MOVEMENT? Instead of protesting on the bridge every Wednesday afternoon, perhaps, going in front of WCCO or the Strib would be a better location!
Those of us who have worked over decades to get some kind of accountability to the public who PAY the police to allegedly "protect and serve" are deeply offended that some in the peace movement are more concerned by minor property damage than by actual violence and an assault on civil liberties by law enforcement at the RNC.(Of course, those of us working on police accountability are NOT surprised by some white,middle-class "peace activists" standing WITH police since these same people are SILENT when the police beat, taser, choke and shoot 4 to 30+ bullets in to UNarmed civilians--the majority of whom are people of color and /or poor) on a regular basis. Human rights abuses only seem to count when they happen in OTHER countries--NOT our own, NOT even in our own cities!) It's long overdue for privleged people who are never (or rarely) subjected to the violence of the State to recognize the role police play--on our streets and at the RNC: protesting the ruling elites--NOT We The People. As the old labor song says, "Which side are you on?" I stand in total solidarity with the Commentary commentary and hope others will consider it for themselves
Lydia Howell, MInneapolis
I'm a person who believes
I'm a person who believes that direct action definitely has a place in movements for social justice, however, I do take issue with the WAY in which direct action is often carried out. Is a time when you're surronding by hundreds of police, when the streets are filled with unsuspecting, peaceful demonstrators, really the time to break shit? It's obviously going to bring a strong police reaction, we're obviously going to be outnumbered and not be able to hold them off, and a LOT of innocent people are obviously going to suffer for that (i.e. get maced, clubbed, arrested, etc.).
What makes a peaceful
What makes a peaceful demonstrator?
I don't know any protesters who was violent towards people on Sept. 1. Do you?
Does it matter whether the
Does it matter whether the target is people or property? The end result is going to be an over the top police reaction either way. Either way you're knowingly putting innocent people in harm's way, where they'll be maced, clubbed, arrested, etc.
I thought the only people
I thought the only people macing, clubbing and arresting people were police?
more thanks for writing
more thanks for writing this. in the face of everything everyone's dealing with after the convention, it's so good to know people have each others' backs and we can focus on our common enemies.
Inspiring!
Thank you so much for writing this! It is so important to keep a clear focus on the issues being presented during demonstrations whether they are considered obedient or disobedient. When the police have shifted their loyalty from the communities they represent to those of a more privileged class we should question why. When the media is sensationalizing direct action, thus blurring the lines between community building and minor property destruction, we as a community should not be fighting amongst each other to have an audible voice projected on fox news or cnn. Instead we should be asking how activism has turned into a marketable product and why the priorities have shifted from executing our goals into the prioritization of "good coverage" by biased, corporate media. It was not that long ago that the movement against the Iraq war was skewed by the media simply for expressing an unpopular opinion. Do not sell yourself out by assimilating into the ruling class' mold of acceptable and unacceptable. It is even more important to remember that noticeability and attainment of privilege do NOT equal change. Just because you look sexy on the television doesn't mean anyone is listening to you (the revolution will not be televised).
Wonderful!
Yes, way to stay on topic! Thanks so much for this mature, respectful, and nuanced statement.
You want to know how to stop
You want to know how to stop a war? Victory. Nuff said
agreed
stopping the war on the poor is only one revolution away!
response to Katrina Plotz
The comments by Katrina Plotz regarding my criticism of the anarchists' actions and the failure of the March organizers to focus on the political activism of the many instead on the antics of the few are clearly illustrative of the need for serious consideration and thinking about how to achieve change in our society.
First, I want to say that I have a 20 year record of working with the Latino and immigrant communities in rural Minnesota opposing racism and discrimination. I have also worked in Minnesota, Arizona, Puerto Rico and in Spain against colonialism, imperialism and unrestrained globalization. I am proud of my record not only of words but of real accomplishments on behalf of the poor, the powerless and the disenfranchised.
The point that I was making on my earlier criticism is that, if you are engaged in a POLITICAL struggle, then ANY actions taken MUST be calculated to assist in achieving the POLITICAL AIMS of the struggle. Ms. Plotz indicates that “many of us believe that elements of civil disobedience and direct action are acceptable and necessary for any movement desiring to mount a serious challenge to the violent, imperialist forces that are exploiting and destroying the lives of millions”, but fails to explain HOW would such direct action HELP in changing the system.
The answer clearly is that such actions do not help and rather hinder the POLITICAL struggle. On September 1st, the media focused on the police and the anarchists instead of on the massive and peaceful protest against Bush and the fascists at the Xcel Center. The POLITICAL message was diluted, and this should not surprise anyone since the media would of course focus its coverage on the clashes as opposed to the march. This was totally foreseeable and totally preventable. Unless Ms. Plotz is advocating that we all take arms and launch a revolution, then the ONLY way to achieve our goals is through the political process, and we must play by the rules of this process, which include knowing how to use the media and also be cognizant of the unfortunate truth that image and perception are everything.
Direct action definitively has appeal, and may indeed have a place in a movement’s struggle for social justice IF and WHEN it supports the POLITICAL goals of the movement. But in the present cultural, historical and political context of 21st century America, there is absolutely no doubt that such actions would at best be counterproductive.
I understand perfectly the frustration and the desire to strike at the oppressive forces arrayed against us. As a Latino male I personally do not need lessons on resistance to oppression from Ms. Plotz or from any White middle class anarchist. But what any SUCCESSFUL social justice movement needs is clarity of message, unity of purpose and consistency in tactics and strategy.
Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. understood this. Dr. King did not rail against the police after the Selma-to-Montgomery marchers were assaulted; he was not sidetracked from his main message of demanding change to the system. The enemy is not the police, the enemy is the system itself, and ONLY thru smart political action we would be able to prevail.
En la lucha,
Francisco J. Gonzalez
Guajataca01@yahoo.com
Cottage Grove, MN
a response from an anarchist
I wish I had more time right now to continue this discussion. I think it is worth addressing the fact that indeed, the anarchist movement is predominantly a white one and that anarchists often ignore historical context, but also that the anarchist movement has a long, long history of solidarity with the struggles of oppressed peoples, and that the history of figures like Martin Luther King, Jr. (not to mention the innumerable non-pacifist revolutionary leaders of color) supporting a diversity of tactics including militant struggle has been (quite literally) whitewashed.
I think there is a very simple response to this argument, though, from the perspective of those participating in direct action, and I believe it applies to the Coalition to March as well. The actions at the RNC were NOT taken for the sake of their political message. They were NOT taken to further any political desires. They were taken to stop the war (or any of many other specific goals). As an anarchist I'm not interested in political struggle. I'm interested in results. I participated because I believe total liberation can only happen without the presence of the state, and I believe the Coalition organized because they want the war to end now. And history has shown that while using mainstream media and and mainstream sympathy can sometimes be effective tactics, they by no means constitute a viable strategy.
comments to an anarchist
I hope that Comrade Haloka and any other reader of these posts realize that this discussion is about how best to achieve a shared vision. I am personally a Trotskyite at heart, but agree on much of what anarchism stands for. One of my personal heroes is the Spanish anarchist Buenaventura Durruti, who died fighting against fascism during the Spanish Civil War. Having said that, however, it is important to have consensus about what the March was all about. Comrade Haloka indicates that the goal was to Stop the War: if that is so, then the march failed, as far as I know the war continues as I write these lines. However, if the goal was to influence the debate and to reaffirm the massive opposition by a significant portion of the American people to the war in Iraq and against the policies of the Bush administration, then the actions of a few that distracted from the message were not helpful.
I personally am not opposed to direct action, but it MUST BE SUBSERVIENT TO and COMPLEMENTARY TOACHIEVING THE POLITICAL AIMS OF THE MOVEMENT. Now, Comrade Haloka indicated that he is not interested in politics and that using the media does not constitute a viable strategy. However 15 to 30 thousand people showed up to do EXACTLY that: to influence the political debate and to deliver a message to the fascists. That was indeed a very successful outcome.
The anarchists need to understand that while many people support movements for social change, most are not interested in revolution. Absent the possibilities of an insurrection, then the ONLY was to achieve change is to work within the bounds of the system in place. Dr. King stressed non-violence not because he thought it was immoral for African-Americans to defend themselves, but because he knew it would not be successful in achieving the goals of his movement: an end to segregation and Jim Crow laws.
I am interested in achieving results: in stopping the war and US support for racist and dictatorial regimes abroad; ending persecution and deportation of our immigrant brothers and sisters; and end to capitalist exploitation of workers and the rape of our environment. Gestures of defiance require bravery and a commitment to the cause that are commendable, but they are also meaningless in achieving any of these goals, and in my opinion counterproductive.
In conclusion, there is no middle ground here: either we try to achieve political change, which by definition means working within the existing political framework; or we strive to achieve revolutionary change, which demands total commitment to overthrowing the current regime by all means necessary. I do not think that a revolution will succeed in my lifetime, and thus I do not support grandiose but empty gestures that hinder rather than help achieving real political gains.
En la lucha,
Francisco J. Gonzalez
Guajataca01@yahoo.com
I don't think gestures such
I don't think gestures such as breaking windows and wrecking cop cars are meaningless and I think they d serve the goals of our movement- that being the anarchist movement but even the movement of the under-classes generally. Believe it or not, a lot of work goes into creating the conditions for such actions to happen and now we've seen the largest resurgence of anarchism in over a decade. This was a huge victory for us and gives us a lot of places to go, including connecting with our local struggles and helping them out in ways we couldn't before.
Are people down for revolution? Not yet. But as things evolve here with the economy, etc I think there will be a lot more people willing to openly fight the system outside of the political process. That sounds a lot more appealing than sticking to only peaceful tactics and begging our masters for what we want.
One more thing... nobody was
One more thing... nobody was "distracted" from the message by what happened. All of the media coverage mentioned the peaceful march, even if it didn't get center stage. And 10,000 people is a small march compared to what was happening a few years ago when LESS people opposed the war. So let's be realistic here... how much coverage would it have gotten if no violence had occurred that day? Like it or not, the actions of both the anarchists and the police have gotten a lot of attention focused on what was going on in the streets and the police especially really helped open a lot of people's eyes about what is going on in this country.
I strongly disagree.
If nobody was distracted than why are the anarchist demonstrations and the big march on monday the only demonstrations being presented (what about the poor people's march and revolutionary love?). Demonstrations that were smaller than Monday's anti war march and less aggressive than the anarchist's demonstrations were far less noticeable, even within the metro area, because the press was so fixated on selling "exciting" stories.
Further, it really doesn't seem to me that there is an active discussion occurring on a national level about police brutality as a result of the actions in St Paul. Within Minneapolis and St Paul there are plenty of questions, but once you leave the area and venture out you're going to be hard pressed to find anyone outside of activist circles that is still talking about the RNC.
Eh? All of the marches
Eh? All of the marches received varying amounts of media coverage depending on the channel, etc. Perhaps mostly because the police seemed intent on using every last ounce of chemical weapons and arresting lots of people and caught lots of journalists in the middle, but still.
Sectarianism vs. common struggle
I definitely agree with your message that the direct action tactics during the RNC were a great success for the anarchists: lots of attention and a well-deserved reputation for courage, daring, boldness and strength of convictions. I am sure that many young people would be attracted to learn more about the ideology and goals of anarchism.
However, I don’t see any comparable coverage of the pro-immigrant, pro-environment, anti-war, social justice, LGBT and other social justice messages which the overwhelming majority of the marchers wanted to share. Now, I want to be clear that I believe that the corporate media is not out there to do activists any favors, but that being the case, why play into their hands by giving them the spectacle that they want? On Sept.1 there were no news from the Republicans: they had canceled most of their events, and the media was just sitting there with nothing to do. The PERFECT setting for activists to conduct not only the march but also to challenge the Republican ideology and provide material for the press. Instead, thanks to the anarchists the press had all the news that they needed handed to them without having to engage in any intellectual debate: the “good cops” chasing the “black-clad thugs”…that’s all that the media needed in order to fill their nightly news.
I want to invite the anarchists to learn from history, to see how true progress can be made when ALL progressives work together in a common cause with a common political message and common tactics. The Popular Front victories in Spain and France in the 1930’s are key examples of how Communists, Socialist, Anarchist labor unions like the CNT-FAI and bourgeois liberals can and did work together. The goal is not to create revolution, the goal was to show the people that a better world is possible: give concrete proposals to address real immediate needs, and then deliver on your promises. Build revolutionary change without having a revolution.
One last thing, and forgive me for being blunt: please do not talk about revolution unless you know what that means. Armed struggle is bloody, dirty and cruel: I have met guerrilla leaders from El Salvador and once a Puerto Rican Machetero “terrorist”; revolution is not breaking windows or being arrested by cops: revolution is seeing your friends getting killed by police officers, and then their families arrested; revolution means you having to kill people that may be innocent because you cannot risk having an informer on your ranks; revolution means sacrifice, pain, suffering and destruction because the oligarchs and the power-that-be will not hesitate to use violence to response to violence. We all saw that in St. Paul. Do not say that you want to create revolution unless you are prepared to face what that means…I am not, nor are most progressives and radicals.
To our anarchist comrades I just want to say that they struggle needs your enthusiasm, bravery, dedication and passion, but the struggle is and can ONLY be political, because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
En la lucha,
Francisco J. Gonzalez
No LGBT Message? The Bash
No LGBT Message?
The Bash Back! blockade, which was a radical trans/queer anarchist action, got a ton of media attention and mass support from the radical community. In fact on some stations it received MOST of the anarchist coverage. If it wasn't for anarchists organizing direct action at the convention, the Bash Back! network of radical queers would not exist right now.
If there weren't blockades and window smashing the protests at the RNC wouldn't have made ANY news outside of the Twin Cities. Be real people. Not that my major goal for supporting radical organizing at the RNC was to garner media attention, but you are saying that all these messages were lost because of the "direct action." When in reality it is the exact opposite. If it wasn't for 50 pissed of queers and trans people in bright colors building street barricades queer issues never would have made it into the news.
CNT-FAI?
ummmm....sure the CNT-FAI won a lot of victories, but it wasn't because they focused on the mainstream media or a rotten political process
and less you forget, the vanguard socialists turned on the anarchists and started killing them at the end of that Civil War
I'm not sure how your criticisms are valid here Francisco. They are criticisms that have been made and answered after every mass mobilization since Seattle. Finally we had a mobilization (not without its flaws, turnout was horrible) where people supporting a wide variety of tactics stuck together and now you are demeaning that.
Perhaps you think we should have all been focusing our energies on canvassing for Obama?
There is absolutely no sort of news coverage of a peaceful march that would have achieved strategic or tactical goals. (that being said there is no sort of news coverage of 300 black clad protesters smashing windows that would have achieved them either). Until people get serious, and yes, as you admit, putting their freedom and perhaps lives on the line, the fascists will continue to bomb whomever they want.
But if we ever get organized to stop a war, its not going to be with peaceful marches only. Its going to be peaceful marches, strikes, sabotage, stopping military supply routes, shutting down parts of the military-industrial complex, open revolt within the military, petitions, documentaries, and lots of shit on lots of different fronts, etc, etc, etc
The fact is that NOTHING that happened in St Paul got much mainstream media attention, save the two minute "cops battle protesters blurb". Barring that we would have gotten the two minute "thousands of people turned out in the streets protesting the war" blurb. Media attention is not viable tactic, if it ever was.
Provide material for the
Provide material for the press? You think had there been no confrontations and everything had gone off without a hitch, the press would've paid attention and given all of those struggles you mentioned a bit of time on the news? You must live in a different world than I do. Beyond that, I don't think even many of the non-anarchist elements would've accepted that- there were other breakaway marches and they were all met with force. This happened on all the following days as well. Why would things have been any different? And really, you'd be asking us to throw away two years of planning. We upheld our part of the St Paul principles and I don't think anybody went into those with any illusions. And shit, it was the biggest success of the broader social justice movement in decades too, not just anarchists. All of those other groups were out on the street, defying the police and the state because they believed they had a right to be there. And that's fucking awesome too.
Its pretty fucked you should tell US to learn from history and then bring up Spain as an example. Spain saw a country where revolution was possible and unfolding fall to fascism because the most powerful portions of the "popular" front you're uplifting decided it was more important to uphold the Republican government than allow the revolution to continue. A front that only came into existence because the radical workers armed themselves and fought the fascist coup. The anarchists worked with those groups, sure, but they still pursued a revolutionary course and they were making gains until they were stabbed in the back, murdered and the country handed over to the fascists. Where's the inspiration there? What are we supposed to be learning?
I don't mind you being blunt, but don't take me for an idiot either. I understand perfectly well that revolution isn't pretty, though I wasn't talking about focoist armed struggle either. And you're absolutely wrong when you say they will respond to violence with violence. They don't care if we're violent. If we represent any threat at all they will not hesitate to use violence against us. And I don't see why that means we should shy away into purely political means. They've made it abundantly clear they will ignore us and if we ever get to the point where they can't, well, we're back to the violence again.
And too horrible to contemplate? That's the world we live in right now. That's the people who have power right now. Trying to end that can be horrible and often has. But it isn't an absolute and its no reason not to try.
CNT-FAI and history
My comments about Spain were simply to illustrate how the anarchists and other left forces part of the Popular Front achieved political victory in the elections of February 1936 because they all worked in unison, with a single message and, generally-speaking, concerted tactics. The CNT-FAI compromised with the Socialists and leftists, and decided to put on hold the anarchist revolution for the sake of attempting to deal with the pressing issues of the day for the people of Spain: building schools, hospitals, increasing minimum wage, etc. The anarchists agreed that it made sense to begin bringing the people up, addressing their immediate needs and not pushing for the social revolution that rank and files members wanted. The fascist uprising on July 1936 changed everything: when the CNT decide to take over and collectivize businesses and agricultural land, this disrupted the war efforts; moreover, the anarchist militias also refused to integrate into the military command structure of the Republican (Left) army, making coordination, resupply and tactical deployments difficult. Once the war started, sectarianism from any stripe could only hinder production and organization of the rearguard and deployment of the front-line forces. The conflict between the anarchists and the Republican government in May 1937 was tragic, but we need to keep in mind the context: of the rapid progress of the fascist rebels and the need of the government for a single united war effort.
As far as direct action vs. political activism: my mother and her family were refugees of the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939. I have seen the bullet holes on the houses, and I have spoken to my relatives that starved during the war, or that lost loved ones to the fascist firing squads during and after the conflict and whose graves remain unknown to this day. Too horrible to contemplate indeed, and thus I personally will never condone or support violence of any kind in to make a political point.
On the RNC march, I guess that I wasn't clear as to what I was getting at: not that the anarchists do not have the right to take direct action, but simply that doing it at the same time and place of the protest march really stole the spotlight from the march. That is a fact. Now, if you want to say that the media would not have cared about the march anyways, well, that was not up to anarchists to decide. Again, 15 to 30 thousand people decided to march to give a message. 15 to 30 thousand people wanted to maximize the impact of their message, and that did not happen. Maybe it would have been useless, maybe the media would have devoted the exact same 5 second blur to the march even if the anarchists would not have staged their direct action. I guess we will never really know, but the point is that 15 to 30 thousand people believed that their methods were sound, and that they would have an impact on the RNC.
The revolution did not
The revolution did not disrupt the war effort in Spain: it was the war effort. There was no resistance to the fascists from the state or any part therein. The workers had to forcibly seize arms and fight back and only then did the government, etc bother to try and get involved. The militia system was not perfect and the infighting didn't help, sure, but if the parties backed by the USSR had gotten behind the revolution, it would've probably been a different story. Fascism occurs when revolution fails. This was the case in Italy and Germany and it was the case in Spain as well. Even if the Republic had held out and defeated the coup, the same interests behind the fascists would've come to power soon enough anyway.
I've seen the graves in Spain and I don't think they would view their deaths as horrible. They died resisting something infinitely more horrible. We live in a system of violence and the vast majority of it comes from the top down. However peaceful you want to be, if you plan to threaten those in power they will be violent with you. So I won't condemn any tactics in this struggle. And this historical discussion is tired and has been had a million times.
How can you say its a fact about the march? We don't know what would've been reported and frankly I don't care. The media is never on our side and never will be and I doubt they would've addressed any of the issues. It would've been one blurb or the other. And the actions were not staged at the same place... that was the point of the St. Paul Principles. The anarchists acted on their own and they had a message too, with methods they thought were sound and would have an impact on the RNC. Your preferred march doesn't have a monopoly on the entire downtown area. That's been agreed on since the beginning.
"I personally am not opposed
"I personally am not opposed to direct action, but it MUST BE SUBSERVIENT TO and COMPLEMENTARY TOACHIEVING THE POLITICAL AIMS OF THE MOVEMENT."
What you don't understand here is that my movement is different than your movement. We have different goals and different political aims. I did not sign up to be part of your movement and my actions are not going to be subservient to your movement's goals. I realize that we have a common enemy (for now) in the current state so there are ways that we can work together and collaborate. Our agreement, the St. Paul Principles called for a respect for time and space and it also called for us not to condemn eachothers' actions.
Francisco, you and I are not on the same side of things. If we can come to an agreement on how we will interact with each other in the streets and in the media, I think that can work out for the best. If not, and you go and bash us in the media, we're not going to go out of our way to make sure that our protest doesn't interfere with yours...
Francisco,you are totally violating the St Paul Principles
the St Paul Principles were agreed to in order to avoid this type of ugly public display
you are not respecting this agreement made by organizers on all sides
if you do not support direct action/revolution/whatever if it's not on your terms, that's fine, but don't expect people to fall in line with you after you publicly attack them.
you are not going to cow anyone into following your desire to march in circles for change, so don't hold your breath on that one
the St Paul Principles were a brilliant move, one of the best things to come out of the RNC protest organizing, for all involved, and now you've gone and stepped all over them
militant struggle
Militant struggle will never be as effective as pacifict, diplomatic resolve is in quenching people's grievance against any government or organization. It will continually be viewed as intolerant and closed to dialogue, loud and domineering instead of being tactful and listening...
oh and i thought we got to skip this
And here I was so excited that we got to skip this discussion this time around (thanks so much for the statement Katrina - I think perhaps we forget how much "mainstream" groups and "radical" groups have shittalked each other in recent history)
consistency in strategy must include a diversity of tactics
the message was loud and clear - "no party for the warmakers, you're not welcome in this city"
if large protests were enough, this war would have not been started - do you remember the worldwide protests in 2003?
if people were serious about stopping this war, if they felt it with urgency, like it was their own homes about to be bombed, the tactics would not just include peaceful marches (though there is always a time and place for those). Your oversimplification of the Civil Rights Movement to peaceful marches that didn't talk bad about cops ignores the range of other tactics and groups - from community mutual aid programs, to massive boycotts, to the Black Panthers and the Young Lords, to intense riots that crippled whole cities - that were part of that movement (and of course, even in the Year of Obama, we could perhaps look at racial disparities in education, in child mortality rates, in income, in homeownership- many that are the same or worse than they were 30 years ago - and ask whether that movement went far enough or not)
Are we really still going to talk about the mainstream media strategy? The same mainstream media that spent most of the convention talking about whether Sarah Palin's baby was hers or har daughter's?
Thanks to all that worked on the St Paul principles - I hope they become a model in the future for building coalitions. Thanks to all that have given up on the notion that there is only one acceptable way to work to change this system that kills, starves, bombs, poisons, and incarcerates so many people. Thanks to this "on-message" statement that reminds us the real issue is not a few broken windows, or a few bad apples hijacking a peaceful protest, but the war mongers, criminals and terrorists in charge of this country and the police force they insured for $10 million dollars against any brutality charges to help make sure their party could go on.
"the Message" and diversity of tactics
This is the response I posted to the thread on TCDailyPlanet that Katrina was responding to. http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2008/09/08/march-organizers-failed-...
I consider myself an anarchist but I have never destroyed property and I marched in the permitted march on the first day of the RNC as well as a nonviolent unpermitted march.
I am not writing this post in order to debate tactics for creating social change or what kind of society I want to create. Those are larger debates to have in our communities and throughout our lives.
In reading Mr. Gonzalez’s posts, I felt compelled to respond to his authoritarian comments about “the MESSAGE” of protestors and his characterization of direct action as “mindless,” “unnecessary,” and “nihilistic.”
However, I want to first briefly say that I appreciate Mr. Gonzalez’s statement that “many immigrants and people of color cannot afford to get arrested and deported by acting up against the system.” This is all too true. I’ve never heard any anarchists denounce anyone for not taking risks that they don’t want to take, especially those who face intense state repression. But this does not mean that those who are in a position to take greater risks or feel that these risks are necessary despite the consequences should not take these risks. They must of course take into account how their actions will affect others and plan accordingly. We are all working together to fight state repression and we are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions.
Back to “the message.” No one owns “the message” of any protest and there is no single message that has the right to trump any other. You have your message, Mr. Gonzalez, and the Coalition to March on the RNC had theirs, but there is no way that the thousands of people in the permitted all agreed on exactly the same message. As you pointed out, there were many contingents in this march with various messages, be they pro-immigrant, anti-war, pro-Palestinian, etc. I was personally very happy to see so many people bring their own messages, their own creativity, and their own energy to this demonstration. That is precisely what made it a successful show of force for progressive social movements. The media of course did not portray all of these messages, but that is a problem with corporate media and not any protesters. We can’t count on corporate media to deliver our messages; we have to deliver them ourselves (through a variety of means including independent media, talking to people in our communities, etc.).
The above also applies to black bloc participants and others utilizing direct action. They too have their own messages and the right to deliver them as they see fit. They are not “hijacking” “the MESSAGE” or detracting from some official message that they were not allowed to decide on. They are delivering their own. If the corporate media gives their message more press (which they don’t – they just deliver a police message calling these actions violent and they never explain why people are doing what they are doing), denounce the corporate media not the anarchists.
This brings me to my other point of contention with Mr. Gonzalez. Just because the police and the corporate media like to portray direct action and property destruction as “mindless,” that does not mean it is actually the case. Planned property destruction is indeed well thought out and generally does have a specific “message.” Acts of random destruction are likely the acts of police provocateurs and not anarchists, but if this ever occurs it is not due to illegitimate rage. In a world of exploitation, oppression, war, and state repression, anger at the way things are is completely justified and is a productive emotion. As the old slogan goes: “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”
Obviously I cannot speak for “the anarchists” and there is no one unified message that we all agree on. And I don’t think there should be. Nevertheless, I think some quotes from the anthropologist David Graeber’s excellent essay “On the Phenomenology of Giant Puppets: Broken Windows, Imaginary Jars of Urine, and the Cosmological Role of the Police in American Culture” (published in his 2007 anthology “Possibilities: Essays on Hierarchy, Rebellion, and Desire” published by AK Press) will help clarify some of the common misperceptions about acts of property destruction:
“Such acts are anything but random. They tend to follow strict ethical guidelines: individual possessions are off-limits, for example, along with any commercial property that’s the base of its owner’s immediate livelihood [i.e. not “mom and pop” shops]. Every possible precaution is to be taken to avoid harming actual human beings [or animals]. The targets – often carefully researched in advance – are corporate facades, banks and mass retail outlets, government buildings, or other symbols of state power…
Consumer capitalism renders us isolated passive spectators…property destruction, then, is an attempt to ‘break the spell,’ to divert and redefine. It is a direct assault on the Spectacle…[it] is a matter of taking an urban landscape full of endless corporate facades – and flashing imagery that seems immutable, permanent, monumental – and demonstrating just how fragile it really is. It is a literal shattering of illusions” (380-381).
This is not nihilism! It is both intentional and productive.
If you don’t think direct action is “needed” or “effective” then don’t do it, but let others decide for themselves. I have never heard a black bloc participant tell peaceful protestors that they shouldn’t be marching in a permitted march even though many feel it is ineffective, let alone physically try to prevent anyone from protesting in a certain area or publicly condemn their actions afterword. Everyone has a right to decide what is right, necessary, and effective for themselves.
On another note, I disagree with Mr. Gonzalez’s insinuations that we should confine ourselves to tactics used by other movements in the past or in other countries. While I am all for learning from these movements and embracing their legacy of struggle, I don’t believe that the solutions for our own context are already written or have already been demonstrated. If that were the case, there would be no need to keep struggling. These movements and ideas had successes, but we have not ultimately been successful in creating a world free from exploitation and oppression -yet. We have to continually re-examine our assumptions and invent new tactics and modify our ideologies if we are to find solutions to our problems. We must carry the past with us as we create worlds of possibility in the present.
I tip my hat to Katrina.
Let me start by saying that I have had the opportunity to participate in an act of civil disobedience with Katrina. I have witnessed her resolve and determination. We both still face the possibility of jail time, fines, etc. because we took a stand on March 27, 2008. I thank her for the opportunity to stand in solidarity with her.
I am not an anarchist (despite that sign you may have seen me wearing on day 4 - I was trying to see if the police would target me - they did not), socialist, democrat, republican, etc. I am a human being. As a human being, I am outraged by the lack of humanity I see in the world today. Inhumanity thrives despite centuries of struggle - be it "peaceful," "violent," "within the framework of a political process" or "outside the framework of a political process." This leads me to consider the possibilities that either some within these struggles were very demented or these struggles fell short of achieving what should have been the desired results. Therefore, I am not willing to sign on with a "movement," and I am not willing to accept declarations that any set of tactics is more or less desirable at any given moment. In my opinion, anyone who claims to be some sort of authority (regardless of the basis) in regards to which tactics are more or less desirable is ignorant (please forgive me for being blunt). The smartest people I've ever met realized they knew nothing.
I went to that National Guard recruiting office on March 27, 2008, because I had to do something as a human being. Do I know whether or not my actions on that day did, or will do, any good? No. Do I know whether or not my presence in St. Paul from September 1, 2008, through Setember 4 (actually 6), 2008, did, or will do, any good? No. Do I know that my continued presence in the courtrooms where RNC arrestees are being tried has done, or will do, any good? No. Nonetheless, I will not stop. I will not stop because something inside of me says human beings do not sit idly by while other human beings suffer. If I have to bang on the windows of a National Guard recruiting office because they won't let me in, I'll do it. If I wake up tomorrow with the sense that the best course of action is to break some windows or burn some police cars, bet your last dollar it's going to happen. If I decide the best course is to take up arms, tell the agents of the state I can aim where the bullet proof vests are not. And if anybody thinks I'm going to pay much attention to a lecture about which tactics are appropriate for the time and place, they can think again.
The St. Paul Principles demonstrated what I consider to be insightful wisdom on the part of their authors. I tip my hat to them and to Katrina for her insightful and wise comments here.
In accordance with the St. Paul principles, I won't comment on the postings of any other individuals. I'm not always as restrained as Katrina.
Bill Drebenstedt
Minneapolis, MN
It is the world which bleeds life from my body
It is the truth that binds me
Evil surrounds, threatening to consume
Engraving inscriptions upon my tomb
He fought back, it will read
Shaking their system of brutal greed
Lay aside your preconceptions
Open your eyes to their deceptions
He entered the realm of martyrdom
So that you might understand freedom
I cannot sit idly by
Watching the human spirit die
Direct action & political message not mutually exclusive
The St. Paul Principles are rooted in the belief that diversity, creativity, and solidarity make us stronger. It's a shame that some critics continue to insist that lecturing and policing fellow activists is only way to achieve success.
Mr. Gonzalez seems to believe that positive coverage in the corporate media should be the only goal of any POLITICAL demonstration. But to use his own argument, he fails to explain "HOW this would HELP in changing the system." And furthermore, his assumption that if no one had engaged in direct action, the media would have produced lengthy and glowing reports on the march is not based in reality. When it comes to large permitted demonstrations, the media have notoriously downplayed our numbers, dismissed us as irrelevant, or failed to cover us at all. I actually thought the media did a better job than usual of covering the September 1st march.
I'd also like to suggest that direct action and political message don't have to be mutually exclusive. Creating a false "either/or" on this question undermines our collective ability to effectively use more than one tactic on the same day or in response to the same event. When asked about the broken windows at a press conference on September 2, march organizers responded with some version of “Clearly people are outraged about the injustice oppressing people around the world and at home. But a broken window is nothing compared to the real violence happening in Iraq," and we went on to explain why 30,000 people marched to end the war and to demand peace, justice, and equality for all. We cannot speak for other protesters or control their actions and see no reason to do so. I hope we continue to put our efforts into building a diverse coalition of activists who express themselves in a variety of ways, rather than attempt to manipulate conditions with the hope that the corporate media will communicate our message for us.
Had we chosen to denounce the "antics of others" as Mr. Gonzalez recommends, infighting among protesters would most definitely have been the main focus of news coverage. This would serve to create divisions among potential allies and would certainly become one of the very distractions from THE MESSAGE that Mr. Gonzalez seems so intent on avoiding.
And finally, is strictly "playing by the rules" really the best way to change the system that made the rules in the first place? I don't think so. On the last day of the RNC, nearly 400 people were arrested for the "crime" of marching after a permit expired. Within the Anti-War Committee we’ve found that this act of challenging the rules and refusing to be silent energized and inspired both participants and onlookers. An AP reporter who was arrested with us, called our office the next day and said, "That was great."
Our critics are certainly entitled to their opinions, but I hope we’ll continue to look for ways to cooperate with each other, and challenge the system rather than the other way around.
Katrina Plotz
Very Sad
It is very sad to note the stand taken by Mr.Gonsales and his attempts to make a positive impression which is totally false. This post is very important for the people to read and know the real situation. Keep up the good work.