Against Generalization, for Diversity of Tactics
by Chuck Munson

I'd like to respond to Judy Rebick's essay about the current state of
tactics in the anti-globalization movements ("Qatar Reveals Impact of
Sept 11 on Trade Battle",
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2001-11/17rebick.cfm). It
contains several misrepresentations of the "diversity of tactics"
philosophy and it contributes to the marginalization of militancy that
the enemies of our movement are doing right now to divide us. I find it
irresponsible that Rebick would represent the philosophies of the
militant wing of the movement without bothering to do her research.
Unfortunately, this is par for the course, as the liberal reformists in
the anti-globalization movement prefer easy stereotypes to any kind of
dialogue or understanding.

I have been a social change activist and anarchist for over 15 years. I
cut my activist teeth on nonviolent protests against apartheid, while I
was a student activist at the University of Kansas in the mid-80s. I've
been arrested for doing non-violent civil disobedience and I've been
arrested during an anarchist riot. I've been to all types of leftist
protest over the years and I've participated in several black blocs. Let
me make one important thing clear: things get kind of messy on the
streets. Discussions about tactics don't translate easily into well
defined actions on the streets.

Another thing that has become quite clear to me and an increasing number
of other activists is that the days of activists policing other
activists is over. For far too long, activist movements and
organizations have engaged in self-policing activities that have helped
keep a lid on dissent. The police actually rely on this self-policing as
an official strategy; this was adopted by the police after their brutal
actions during the 1960s started making them look like thugs. The left
has gotten so good at policing itself that it even started marching into
the anti-democratic protest pens when the cops started using that
tactic.

Let's remember that "civil disobedience" consists of two words. Over the
past 30 years, the left forgot about the second word: disobedience.
What's more, if you are an American activist, you supposedly live in a
"free" country where you have freedom of speech is supposed to be
protected. So how did the left get to the point where it cooperated in
its own disempowerment? Social change is not going to happen through
civil, polite protest.

This all changed with Seattle, where the police force was caught be
surprise. Like many police departments, they had developed a culture of
disrespect for activists. Why bother calling up the troops if the tame
activists are just going to have another marathon rally with dozens of
speakers? In Seattle, thanks to the actions of thousands of people, the
"disobedience" part was put back into civil disobedience. Later, many
people commented on the fact that many of the usual protest managers
(the ones normally selling papers) were refreshingly absent. Of course,
labor attended Seattle, but most of their numbers were kept in shackles
by the usual coterie of union bosses.

Now Judy Remick argues several things that I'll take issue with. She
claims that "the monumental events of September 11 and its aftermath
have had an
impact in both strengthening the position of the rich countries and
weakening the anti-corporate globalization forces, especially in North
America." On the contrary! The position of the rich countries has been
significantly weakened after 9/11. The American public has been awakened
from its long sleep is is now taking an active interest in global
issues. The major industrial nations face the prospect of collapsing
economies an the tightening of borders. A large space has also opened
for activism after 9/11, especially for activists in the Global South.
The United States has become a bully backed into the corner. Suddenly
everybody sees how weak the bully is with its F-16 fighter and B2
bombers. The bully's arm is badly swollen after some killer bees came in
through it's much vaunted defenses.

The proponents of the WTO may have reached a new agreement, but let's
remember that these agreement can always be fought.

Yes, the more militant portions of the movement see the backing off by
NGOs as a retreat. It's understandable that they should be concerned
about losing mainstream financial support, but I think this retreat is
ill advised. Of course, the retreat by pseudo participants in these
movements by organizations like the AFL-CIA were to be expected.

After some comments about this weekend's protests in Ottawa against the
rescheduled meetings of the World bank and IMF, she turns to this
philosophy that we call "diversity of tactics." Remick states that
"[m]ost of these
groups do not use violence themselves but they will not condemn or stop
others who choose to use violent tactics." The last part is correct, but
that is just one part of this concept. Diversity of tactics also means
that we will use all varieties of tactics for our protests and dissent.
In some situations, that may mean conducting popular education or
marching with another group. In other situations some of us might choose
to smash a McDonalds, pull up a GMO crop, or spraypaint corporate
property. And then there are situations where we use violence to either
attack or defend ourselves from the police.

Diversity of tactics also recognizes that the tactical situation on the
streets during a protest can break down and become fluid. Who could have
guessed that "nonviolent activists" in Seattle or Quebec City would
throw tear gas canisters back at cops? Who can guess the reaction of
black blocers who choose to not resist police attacks? Another reason
why we advocate diversity of tactics is because we see militants and
nonviolent activists being attacked by cops without provocation. I've
lost track of the number of incidents where the cops attacked a
demonstration in order to arrest people wearing masks.

Promoting diversity in our movements is another reason why we embrace
"diversity of tactics." We want to be more inclusive and involve people
who can't make the personal sacrifices that ritualized non-violent civil
disobedience entails. Of course, within this tactical philosophy,
activists are welcome to engage in NVCD. An example of this were the
anarchists who engaged in a non-violent sit in and lockdown outside D.C.
General Hospital on September 30.

Another reason why we embrace diversity of tactics is because working
people around the world have practiced this philosophy as part of their
dissent for decades, if not more than a century. Protests in the Global
South against the World Bank, IMF, and WTO routinely involve property
destruction and violence. In fact, some of these activists have
expressed puzzlement at the amount of time activists in America and
Canada spend arguing over tactics. In many countries, they can't even
get protest permits, as any demonstration is illegal.

Remick then says that a "tiny group" which embraces these tactics can
throw stones from a demonstration that puts everybody else at risk. This
assumes that activists who embrace diversity of tactics never think
about the welfare of more moderate protesters. This is untrue, of
course, but incidents like this do happen. And as far as the police are
concerned, all activists are the same, so it pays for us to stick
together.

She continues:

"The radical wing of the movement sees enforcing demonstration rules as
authoritarian and simply will not accept it. They also reject arguments
that the heightened level of polarization and potential for repression
creates a new reality post September 11 where promising non-violence is
even more important."

Needless to say, the movement doesn't divide easily into a radical wing
and a non-radical wing. There is a multiplicity of tendencies that
overlap and that vary depending on each individual. Many folks like to
think that the NGOs are opposed to militant tactics, but one of the
secrets of the movement is how they covertly support militant actions
that they can't publicly support. Demonstration rules are, of course,
authoritarian. The moderates have frequently lied to the press that they
are the primary organizers of an action that has been disrupted by
militant outsiders, when the fact is that most of the big
anti-globalization protests are the efforts of many groups and
coalitions. Demonstration rules are designed to police dissent and
discipline it for the interests of some organization.

Remick's comments about the potential for repression after 9/11 are
irrelevant in that there have been numerous militant protests since
9/11. If anything, the police have been constrained because they are
short on personnel. This is one of the post-9/11 openings that the
anti-globalization movement has failed to exploit.

Judy Remick then brings up the most recent tactic to tone down protests:
immigrant participation:

"After September 11, an anti-war, anti-corporate movement could be
reaching out to many immigrants and refugees who understand very well
the price of this war but the cost of participating in a protest that
may turn violent is too high for them."

This is a valid argument that I wish more of the militant activists
would pay attention to, but I have several problems with this argument.
The first one is that this argument has frequently been raised by groups
and individuals who say that they are interested in making immigrants
and illegals feel welcome. When one reads between the lines, you will
often find that these folks are the ones who like to manage protests and
discipline dissent for the purposes of their agenda. Another problem I
have with it is that it assumes that all illegals are fragile people who
are incapable of choosing when they will take risks. I know of illegal
immigrants who have participated in recent militant actions. And lastly,
a "peaceful protest" is no guarantee that an illegal immigrant won't get
picked up because the cops provoke something. Everybody should always
understand that *any* protest is a risk situation.

I agree with Judy that "[n]either wing of the movement can be effective
without the other." The success of the anti-globalization,
anti-capitalist, and global justice movements is that they have
encouraged diversity and haven't tired to unify into one monocultural
movement. In part, this is what diversity of tactics encourages in the
more militant wing of the movement. It takes into account what protests
are like these days, the nature of dissent around the world, and the
fact that the state won't even engage in reforms. Not only has this
creative, vibrant convergence of movements attracted young people, but
it has attracted people from all walks of life.

Let's not forget that our opponents already subscribe to diversity of
tactics, ranging from the conference table to the B-2 bomber.

<< Chuck0 >>

Infoshop.org             -> http://www.infoshop.org/
Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/
Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/
Anarchy: AJODA           -> http://www.anarchymag.org/
Factsheet 5              -> http://www.factsheet5.com/
MutualAid.org (coming soon)
AIM: AgentHelloKitty

INTERNATIONALISM IN PRACTICE

An American soldier in a hospital explained how he was wounded: He said,
"I was told that the way to tell a hostile Vietnamese from a friendly
Vietnamese was to shout 'To hell with Ho Chi Minh!' If he shoots, he's
unfriendly. So I saw this dude and yelled 'To hell with Ho Chi Minh!'
and he yelled back, 'To hell with President Johnson!' We were shaking
hands when a truck hit us."

(from 1,001 Ways to Beat the Draft, by Tuli Kupferburg).
_______________________________________________
infoshop-news mailing list
infoshop-news@infoshop.org
http://www.infoshop.org/mailman/listinfo/infoshop-news 

__________________________________________________

TacticalMedia mailing list
Archivio TM List http://squat.net/tmc/maillist.html
TacticalMedia@squat.net
https://squat.net/mailman/listinfo/tacticalmedia
__________________________________________________