Where There's Smoke: Anarchism After the RNC
Where there's smoke....
Anarchism after the RNC
I.
We've got the numbers, they've got the guns..
Our chants reverberated under the St. Paul skyway. The 2008 RNC protests were underway, the culmination of two years of anarchist/anti-authoritarian organizing materializing before our eyes. For once, we were many, and they were few... or maybe not. With 3500 cops and an uncounted number of National Guardsmen and Secret Service agents on the streets, this time they had both the guns and the numbers.
Overwhelming force was only one element of the state's repression strategy. The main hub of direct action coordination– the RNC Welcoming Committee– had been infiltrated by at least one undercover cop and two paid informants almost a year prior. On Friday night, the hammer came down with a raid on the St. Paul Convergence Center. Cops busted in the doors with guns drawn, forcing about 100 people to the ground, zip-tying them, and then photographing everyone and taking IDs. What a start to the weekend...
The next morning, I got a call from a friend alerting me that the cops were raiding anarchist houses across south Minneapolis. Eventually, four houses had been raided, and eight members of the Welcoming Committee jailed.
Over the next week, over 800 people would be arrested in conjunction with the protests. Many would be injured by rubber bullets, concussion grenades, tear gas, pepper spray, and other weaponry. The state imposed a high cost on expressing dissent.
II.
The Strategy of Tension
Such a brutal reaction might lead us to believe that 'we must be doing something right.' After all, where there's smoke, there's fire, right? We must really pose a threat. Why else would the FBI and lord knows what other agencies put so many resources into crushing our protest?
No doubt, the prospect of a major political convention being delayed or cancelled due to protest activity would be extremely embarrassing for the ruling elites. However, we must also be aware of the way that the capitalist class uses threats to the existing order to legitimize the violence with which it maintains its hold on the planet. The experiences of the Italian left in the 1970s provide valuable historical lessons for today’s radical movements.
In the 1970s, the Italian state, backed by the United States government, faced a massive social insurgency that threatened the stability of capitalism. In response to the rise of autonomous movements of workers, women, students, youth, and pretty much everyone else, the state launched a campaign of terror. In 1969, the Piazza Fontana was bombed in a 'false flag' attack, killing 17 people and injuring 88. The attack was attributed to anarchists, although it had in fact been planned by neofascists with the support of US covert operatives. Their goal was to delegitimize the left, stem the tide of social insurgency, and push the government to declare a state of emergency in which the left could be crushed.
In the wake of the bombing, the state arrested 4000 people, many of them anarchists. This was the first in a series of over 140 bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, beatings, and other assaults perpetrated by the state and neofascist right in order to demonize the left. This was dubbed the "Strategy of Tension." The objective is to render the cultural environment impervious to social movement organizing by discrediting, and then eliminating the interventionist left. To borrow a phrase from counterinsurgency strategy, the Strategy of Tension 'drains the swamp,' raising the stakes for participation in social struggles, leaving only the most hard core activists alone on the field of battle where they can be easily targeted and destroyed. The ensuing defense work serves to distract activists from actual struggles, forcing them to devote time, energy, and money to bailing comrades out of jail.
III.
Comrade p.38
In spite of the machinations of reactionary forces, the social antagonism in Italy expanded into an unbridgeable chasm. The 1970s witnessed an outbreak of downright social war. Beginning with the “Hot Autumn” of worker unrest in 1969, the Italian movement crescendoed through the “Years of Lead” of the 70s, reaching an earsplitting climax in 1977 as overlapping waves of factory and university occupations and urban insurrections pushed the state to the brink of collapse. However, the strategy of tension was not without impact within the movements. A split developed in the pro-revolutionary milieu around the question of violence.
On one side were the proponents of mass organization and mass violence, the friends of "Comrade P 38," as we can call them. They favored self-defense of the movement on the broadest possible basis. The leading theorist of this wing of the movement were the intellectuals clustered around Antonio Negri and the other 'Autonomists.’ The movement coelesced into a gallaxy of collectives, workplace committees, small political parties, campaigns, free radio stations, and other autonomous direct action initiatives that was termed the "Area of Autonomy" or Autonomía. Participants in Autonomía were by and large ready to defend themselves in battles with police that occurred at every major demonstration. It was not uncommon for one or two people to be left dead in the street after a protest or strike. In self-defense, some autonomists carried the P 38 revolver, which was cheaply available on the black market. When the pigs fired on the people, the people answered in kind. However, violence was never the focus of this side of the movement. The emphasis remained on building building mass organizations to expand human freedom.
On the other side of the split were the Red Brigades and other hierarchical, closed armed formations. For them, the armed struggle was more than defense, it was a revolutionary strategy in itself. Their organization was the mirror of the state. Through their violence, the state no longer needed provocateurs or false flag attacks. The actions of the Brigades alienated much of the working class base of the movements and provided plenty of rationale for the inevitable crackdown.
The Brigades strategy of armed struggled fit neatly within the state's own strategy of tension. In 1979, the Italian state arrested all the leading figures of the Autonomist project, including Negri and the proponents of the mass, participatory movement. Negri and others were then framed as the intellectual authors, or even as the leaders, of the Red Brigades.
Caught between the forces of the state on one side, and the advance of an armed, hierarchical left on the other, the autonomous movements of 1970s Italy lost popular support and were crushed by a wave of mass arrests. It took over a decade for the left to recover.
IV.
from smoke...
There are lessons to be learned from the experience of Italy. Specifically, we need to be more deliberate in placing tactics within a strategy to reach a goal. The two wings of the Italian movement shared the same goal: the abolition of capitalism and the state. However, they chose different tactics to realize that goal.
In the case of the Red Brigades, their tactics ended up playing into the hands of the state, touching off a wave of repression that the left was unprepared for, pushing the possibility of revolution even farther into the future. The state was able to place the Red Brigades' strategy within its own, making the actions of the Brigades into the motor of their own destruction.
We need to turn the strategy of tension upside down. We must develop a form of antipolitical judo, making the actions of the state into a motor for the growth of our movements. Currently, when we go on the offensive as a small minority, the state cracks down with the approval of the public. The state frames their actions as defense against a small number of terrorists or 'criminal anarchists' who endanger the public welfare. Only when non-anarchists are caught up the crossfire do we hear anything about the state "going too far."
We cannot depend on the police making mistakes in order to make our point or to delegitimize the state. We must build a broad base of solidarity so that an injury to one is truly an injury to all. The state must know that when they strike one, they strike one million. We must defend victims of state repression, such as the RNC 8. However, the only real deterrent to repression is the support and solidarity of autonomous mass organizations. More importantly, this kind of revolutionary base is the only force that will have the actual power to abolish the capitalist system while ending the racism, sexism, homophobia, and national chauvinism that plague the world.
V.
...to Fire
Today's anarchist movement is teetering dangerously between irrelevancy and insanity. We must reject the choice between suicidal adventurism and standing on the sidelines of history. Finance capitalism is collapsing before our eyes. Social tensions thought long-resolved are again tightening. The atmosphere cracks with crisis. Let us not miss this opportunity to radicalize millions.
How can we participate in this historical moment to nudge the world toward revolution? In the United States, we are ill-prepared to answer this question. Most anarchists have played little meaningful role in any major movement in almost a decade. Most anarchists practically stood by watching during the largest anti-war protests in history in 2003. In 2006, most anarchists had virtually nothing to contribute to the largest workers movement in decades, as millions of immigrant workers stepped out of the shadows and into the streets.
For our own benefit, and for the future of this planet, we must begin engaging with our coworkers, neighbors, classmates, and acquaintances to build the kind of power we will need to overthrow the state, seize the means of production, and handle the repression that comes down as we do so. We have as much to learn as we have to teach, but either way, we have a role to play.
We need to begin the work of building a revolutionary social bloc, a coalition of grassroots, autonomous mass organizations based in neighborhoods, homes, schools, and workplaces, fighting for self-determination. In some places this means joining existing organizations, in other places it means building new ones.
Many anarchists would love to participate in a revolutionary movement of the broad masses, but lack the vision, hope, or skills to get from point A to point B. We need to look for lessons from other times, places, and movements for how to participate radically in mass movements.
We don't have to look far into the past for examples. In Europe, Africa, and even the United States, organizations like the Spanish CNT, the Italian FdCA, the Irish WSM, the North American WSA, and others continue a rich tradition of engaged revolutionary anarchism the winds its way through many of the major struggles of the last century. But we may be able to draw the greatest inspiration from South America. Many are familiar with the powerful autonomous movements that have rocked South America over the last decades: the Piqueteros and reclaimed factories in Argentina, Landless Peasants Movement in Brazil, the fight against water privatization and for indigenous rights in Bolivia, to name a few. The role of Anarchists in these movements is less widely known.
In Latin America, Anarchists have developed a praxis of involvement in social movements that they call "Especifismo." The mainstay of Especifismo is the belief that anarchists must form a "specifically" Anarchist organization to formulate and enact a common strategy of engagement with society. This engagement is called "social insertion," which means that the Anarchist organization joins non-Anarchists in mass struggle or mass organizations around common interests. These struggles can include strikes, rent strikes, struggles for control of the land, struggles against the police and gentrification, struggles against sexism, for the right to abortion, against bus fare increases, or any other issue that angers working people and moves them to act.
In the struggles, Anarchists put forward viable proposals and ideas based on an anti-authoritarian, anti-statist approach to organizing.
As struggles are won, regular people gain more power against the bosses and the state. Those who are oppressed within the working class build their own autonomous organizations, fighting for the specific demands of women, queers, people of color, immigrants, indigenous, students, youth, the disabled, and other groups. Contradictions emerge, conflicts occur, the movement grows stronger.
This is not nearly as sexy as shutting things down and getting branded as a terrorist, but over the long-term, this patient, conscientious approach is the only way to lay the basis for revolution in the United States itself.
VI.
Forward
We should not have any regrets as a movement. Over the last decades, North American Anarchists have kept the flame of libertarian revolution alive amidst widespread liberalism and complacency. But it is no longer enough to keep the flame going. It's time for a regroupment. The time has come to build new organizations based on a commitment to participation in mass social struggles as Anarchists. Only within popular movements do we have the power to build a new world. As the social conflagration in Greece, rioting in China, and other recent events demonstrate, there is a new opportunity to build a mass movement against capital and the state. The contradictions are sharpening. Capitalism is becoming a tinderbox. Anarchists must now live up to our ideals. It's time to set the world on fire.
... ...
Background Reading
On the RNC:
http://nornc.org
http://rnc8.org
http://twincities.indymedia.org
http://rnc08report.org
On the Italian Movements
“Italy, Autonomía: Post-Political Politics” published by Semiotext(e)
“Storming Heaven: Class Composition and Struggle in Italian Autonomist Marxism” by Steve Wright
A Few Anarchist Organizations
http://workersolidarity.org
http://fdca.it
http://wsm.ie
http://nefac.net
http://solidarityanddefense.blogspot.com
http://www.vermelhoenegro.org/
http://www.nodo50.org/fau/
- 1780 reads
- Printer-friendly version


Comments
Up the tactics!
" We've got the numbers, they've got the guns.."
You've got that right. And I would venture to say we dont have the numbers.
Although alot of great things came out of the RNC (network, friendships, and all sorts of collectives), the negatives that came from the RNC greatly out weigh the positives. It was a total drain on resources, energy, time, ect. Rather than spending 2 years organizing for a summit. We could have just as easily decided to let them have St. Paul, strengthen our affinity with those we deem needed and utilized our strengths where they truly are.
Those strengths being agility, the ability to be where they're not, and our ability to be a small body of folks putting pressure on crisis. This means, picking the dates, turf, and tone of our battles, winning them and backing off and striking again when they're vulnerable.
One reason we don't have the
One reason we don't have the numbers is because of the actions and behaviors of our community at times. I'm embarressed to be an anarchist lately.
And a lot of people think the RNC was a success despite the problems and missed opportunities. Nobody is claiming it is win. We learn from that stuff and do it better next time. The Greeks that everyone seems to worship don't point fingers and lay blame, they say it was poor planning move on to the next task at hand. Just because you didn't get to Make Total Destroy does not mean it's a failure. A lot of people came out and held it down in ways they never had before. I dare say that Funk The War, by using the 3S strategy, was more militant than anybody out there. They stood down the police, got attcaked, re-grouped, and did it again, and again, and again, and again.
Also, YOU didn't organize for 2 years, other people did the hard work. Don't cry fall after you drop the ball.
One problem is that older anarchos have stepped away for whatever reason leaving a gap in our collective history.
The people that organized the RNC protests ranged from people with decades of experience to new folks getting their feet wet in huge way. I think they are better judges of what was a success and what was a failure.
If you hate summits, don't go to the G-8 in 2010.
?
"Also, YOU didn't organize for 2 years, other people did the hard work. Don't cry fall after you drop the ball."
What the hell are you talking about? I'm facing 2 felonies for doing just that.
"One reason we don't have the numbers is because of the actions and behaviors of our community at times. I'm embarressed to be an anarchist lately."
Actually, the primary reason folks didn't show to the anti-war march is Obama's recuperating effect on the populations and the police raids the night before on the convergence space. The reason anachists didn't show up in full force is because they either lacked the funds, got arrested in Denver, or just thought summits were non-sensical from the start.
"If you hate summits, don't go to the G-8 in 2010."
Out of necesity, I am not able to go the the G-8 in 2010. But due to the revamping of summit tactics I may have considered had my current circumstances been different. There is no clear open organizing body and the battle ground is Canada not a select city. This may be one of the only acceptable ways to organize summits. It both utilizes our strength in suprise and agility.
In the future, please think before you speak... or make baseless assumptions about those you insult.
Funk the War and Campus Antiwar Network
I agree with you that Funk the War (and the Campus Antiwar Network) held it down pretty well by sticking to the original 3S strategy. I'm still a little fuzzy as to what really happened but it seems like alot of people changed their plans at the last minute because of the pre-emptive raids. But the black bloc standoff with the cops didn't last very long once they started throwing teargas at us.
Every Terrain of Struggle is Different-
This is a great text! although the european Autonomists came out of a Marxist tradition a lot of lessons can be drawn from the work they did. The reason they were able to strike and engage on the streets the way they did was because the had a larger community of people willing to defend them. They were able to act in ways on the streets in ways many talk about but few actually do. They were true insurrectionists, and through the hard work of organizing outside of their affinity groups or social circles, and supporting others in their work, they built mass solidarity and were then able to have huge militant actions and demonstrations and then return safely knowing that people had their backs. They balanced "adventurism" and " building" in a balancing act we can learn from in the Twin Cities.
Acts of violence are acts of violence, no matter who is committing it. Many far-left/post-left groups that came out of Italy always have had a violent undercurrent to their politics, but were very conscious of it and very deliberate in the way it was used. It wasn't glorified, and like the author stated, it wasn't the focus. It was incidental, and part of a larger set of tactics that were available. It wasn't the ONLY option, but it is was in the backpack, so to speak.
When people are saying we need to slow down or be more conscious of how we are presenting things, they are not worried about offending liberals. They are thinking about how to be principled and intelligent in our actions. If we aren't we are just re-creating the system we claim we want to destroy.
this is a fantastic analysis
this is a fantastic analysis which i hope is widely read. history has been seriously missing from my conversations with fellow anarchists lately, and i'm a bit embarrassed to not have known most of the history and context outlined in this article. hopefully others will feel the same way and read up!
Read this too, for an
Read this too, for an additional history of Italy in '77. Most of the social struggles has nothing to do with the guerrillas, or the big organizations, but were based on small, self-organized collectives:
http://www.revoltagainstplenty.com/index.php/archive/16/35-memories-of-a-metropolitan-indian
In the future...
... I propose anarchists state to see summits and oppurtunities to take advantage of, not to organize around. When you do that, you are falling right into their hands on their terms.
tactics, the means and the ends...
This essay brings up a couple of points for me. First of all, the author mentions the need to support the RNC8, and it's a funny thing because I know him and the 8 and I haven't seen him do anything to support them. I haven't been to every single support event where we live, but I've been to many and the author of this article hasn't been there. Hmmmmm...also I think indeed the 8 and others (especially Dave Mahoney) need a broad base of community support to render this kind of repression politically untenable for the state. However, that does not require a mass organization, merely a mass of public support from various folks, orgs, whatever. But we need to build these kinds of networks of support and solidarity around these cases and informally maintain them through collective struggle and everyday live, through our jobs, neighborhoods, schools, friendships, etc. That way, the state won't be able to take out this kind of repression on people in the first place, since they know it will backfire and outrage a sizable amount of the population and that many people are prepared to act on their rage. This will de-legitimize the police and "criminal [in]justice system" if not the state in its totality.
The following are a few thoughts about tactics, strategies, and the relationship between the means and the ends, both in general and specifically about black blocs. I am very interested in hearing from insurrectionists in particular and in general to critiques of my logic. By no means do I believe that I have this shit worked.
I don't know enough about the Red Brigades and the situation in Italy in the 1970s, although I'm aware of "the strategy of tension," but I can't really judge his comments on that specific case. But I do think, broadly speaking, that we can't play the game by the state's rules. If we do, not only are they better equipped to win, but we become like them, we lose ourselves and the world we are fighting for. We become what we wish to destroy. The state is an apparatus of control, discipline, and terror. In an attempt to destroy these functions of the state, some have used terror, authoritarian discipline and vanguard tactics with the state as the intended target, but society at large and the individuals in organizations such as the Red Brigades are also affected negatively by their tactics. We can't engage the state on it's terms, not only will we lose, but we will become disturbingly like the state. This is one of the fundamental shortcomings of marxists. They imitate the state, and the results are ugly or ineffective, whether they are trying to bring the revolution through party politics or guerilla military tactics. They ultimately want a stateless society and according to marx that state will eventually wither away after the revolution, but you can't transcend the state if you become the state. That should be pretty obvious by now to all anarchists. If you want a world of nihilist social war and lots of terrism on all sides and lots of alienated people stuck in the middle, then imitating the Red Brigades might be just the thing for you. But if you want a more or less peaceful, free, non-hierarchical and non-authoritarian society, then you cannot engage in struggle on the state's own terms. To be clear, I'm no pacifist and I do advocate mass violence and in particular self-defense, but that is quite different than bombings of civilians or assassinations. Violence is only a tactic, to be used with caution, it is not a strategy in itself.
However, I think the comparison to the RNC is difficult and not readily transferable. If we are to use this analogy from Italy in the 1970s, then the black blocs that engaged in property destruction would be the Red Brigades and I suppose the anti-cap bloc and funk the war and that sort of thing would be the autonomists? Both are clearly ridiculous comparisons. Black Blocs do not engage in acts of terrorism or nihilistic violence, they generally only engage in targeted, intentional acts of property destruction of corporations or the state. This is a far cry from bombings or kidnappings or whatever. I feel that black blocs in some ways do tend to stick to the state's terms of struggles but in some ways they do not. To attack the police is generally impossible and very dangerous in the U.S., especially at events like the RNC where the police state is in full fucking force. However, that is not what blocs usually do, although the media often confuses people about that. And often people in the US today are much more sympathetic to those who do not initiate or escalate struggles with the police, so again there is the question of whether or not we need the masses on our side. By being highly disciplined and militaristic, black blocs do in some ways imitate the police and the military. I recommend reading the second part of "When Insurrections Die" by Gille Dauve (the whole thing is good, but not necessarily relevant here). He's not talking about black blocs, but he does use the example of the Spanish Civil War to point out that the numbers of volunteers of anarchist militia fighters dropped drastically when Durriti transformed the structure from relatively autonomous non-hierarchical community militias into a disciplined, structured, militarized force. Once hierarchies and rules were in place, the anarchist squads were no different then those they were fighting and their ranks dwindled. They tried to engage in struggle on the terms of the state and civil war, and they lost who they were and what they were fighting for and people gave up on them. The point being that when we adopt the structures and tactics of states and/or capitalist organizations, we have already lost.
This critique can also apply to formal "mass organizations" that the platformists advocate in different ways. They can become institutional, governmental, mechanisms of control, and strive for efficiency, order, etc. just like states and corporations. They also tend to sacrifice the autonomy of the individuals involved since the majority wins. They still have a party line to toe. When we use organizations as mechanisms of control, when they function based on their own logic rather than the desires of the individuals involved, when we lose our autonomy, when we think and act like the military or businesses or government institutions and try to beat them at their own game, we have lost. And why would we want to play their game? Don't we want to set our own terms of engagement rather than accept the hand and the rules that we have been given?
Briefly, before I shut up, I want to qualify my critique of black blocs by stating that they challenge the state and capitalism in a fundamental way by targeting private, corporate property, which the state exists to protect and which capitalism creates. In this way they fundamentally challenge the rules of both capital and state. By disguising their identities, becoming a mass, they not only make it easier for themselves to avoid being caught and prosecuted, but they challenge the state's goal of identifying, tracking, and containing subjects. They implode both propety rights and the panopticon. They become ungovernable, a collectivity of total refusal. They take back their own autonomy and violate the sacred laws of the state and capital - private property and social control.
This does not, however, mean that black blocs are effective revolutionary tactics or are useful for movement building. They contain a symbolic beauty, but they may achieve very little. A few things will get smashed, and the masses will mostly be confused, scared, and/or will side with the state and the corporations. Sadly I don't believe such actions destroy the Spectacle or "break the spell." Some comrades may face felonies which is both bad for them and their communities.
So what do we do? I have some ideas but I will stop for now.
**** When Insurrections Die is available as a zine at Prole.info.
"the author mentions the need
"the author mentions the need to support the RNC8, and it's a funny thing because I know him and the 8 and I haven't seen him do anything to support them."
please think twice before statements like this - i find it difficult to have a conversation when personal jabs like this come up so overtly. in this particular instance, i have seen the author at multiple support events, and besides, i think it is safe to say that most targets of state repression would feel that a good way to support them is also to support the movement as a whole.
props, however, for the rest of this obviously well-thought-out analysis.
thank you,
b
not a jab
I didn't intend that as a personal jab, sorry it seemed that way. I have a lot of respect for the author and the amazing organizing that he does. But he wasn't talking about anything related to his kind of organizing work and I thought that in relation to the organizing around the RNC and the aftermath that he was talking the talk a little more than walking the walk. I know that he decides what organizing is important to him and that he doesn't have a lot of time for other stuff, I just felt like he was leading on as though he was more involved in RNC related organizing. And I'm not a fan of fronting or being hypocritical. I still respect this author for the work that he does and the time that he puts into that. I'm a fellow worker ;)
so...
let's hear those ideas! what should we do? the author of the original piece advocates building organizations based in workplaces, neighborhoods, schools, etc. what are your thoughts?
Where the discussion is going down
If you want to debate this essay or are curious what others have to say, the thread at anarchist news in reponse to this essay has 85 comments at the moment, so check it out. There might be other good places where this is being discussed, I don't know, but here's the one I've been trying to follow. I don't plan on continuing to post on this thread on indymedia since there's more discussion happening elsewhere and I don't have the time.
www.anarchistnews.org/
Post new comment