RNC/DNC Distruptions
May 13 2008 12:42
I posted this on the ABC forums, so some of you may have seen this already.
http://www.unconventionalaction.org/ <--Umbrella group
http://www.recreate68.org/ <---DNC
http://www.nornc.org/ <--RNC
Any particular opinions on this? I have no real experience in the activist/protest community, so I'm not quite sure if this is how actions are normally organized, but it looks like it's the real deal. Does anyone have any info or opinions on this/is anyone planning on going to this? I was hoping to make it out to the DNC.
May 13 2008 15:27
#2
i was at the RNC in NYC in 2004 (only my second demo ever).
the bad: while i appreciated the remarkably large number of people who were willing to make a scene, it was locked down tight by the police and was at times an embarrassment. i marched from union square to MSG and there were more cops escorting us than there were of us. cyclists were run into nets and arrested, blimps and helicopters were used for surveillance, cell phones were tapped, provocateurs were inserted. all this was later exposed but it showed that the NYPD could and would do anything they pleased. i'm guessing the minneapolis police might not have the same means, but they'll have help. ncwob is right about the perpetuation of the ghetto: some actions looked ragtag and weak, e.g., onlookers laughed at us who were on that march i mentioned above.
the good: on the other hand, it served as a focal event. it attracted alot of people, and gave both a large platform and a large impetus to a number of antiwar, antibush, and anticapitalist groups.
May 13 2008 16:19
#3
the perfect event at which to plant your FBI supergrass!
May 14 2008 04:05
#4
These are just some general thoughts I've been happening, not particularly in response to others comments in this thread. Personally I'm pretty hyped about the planning going on for the RNC. It seems like really solid and well thought out logistical work, solid outreach and consultation with the broader movement, and a good media strategy that's actually resulted in some decent messaging filtering through. Like others, I don't know enough about what's happening 'on the ground' to tell to what degree they are making inroads in connecting with the general population. I'm pretty pessimistic about the DNC so far.
It seems like with the growing momentum around the RNC is leading to more discussion around these mass protests being a diversionary waste of time in some venues. I think this is a mistake and reminds me a lot of the endless arguments that raged throughout the early 99-Sept 11 summit/convegence protest period. I'm sympathetic to the feeling of frustration one can have when you see all this energy, all these people, all this resources being expended in mobilizing and people traveling to these places. For those of us who work day in and day out in our home communities on projects that feel underfunded, undervalued by others, or just plain could use an infusion of energy, I know I've sometimes felt frustrated and honestly a bit resentful. At least where I've lived the reality however was when the period of mass convergence style protests ended it didn't result in all that energy and resources going into other worthwhile projects. Most people dropped off, or retreated (in my view) into single issue organizing often leading to getting sucked back into reformist politics. We also lost one of the main conduits funneling young activists into the broader movement. Yes, I think there surely were the stereotypical people who simply went from protest to protests, but there were also a whole lot of folks who's experience led them to hook up with other local activists for the next big event, and then those folks started working together and eventually decided, wow, maybe we can start doing stuff locally too.
I'm just speaking personally in feeling like people are missing the big picture of how these events can benefit the anarchist movement in general and any specific worthwhile projects. The fact is the RNC convegence will almost certainly be the largest gathering of North American Anarchists in years and one of the main players in the organizing is an anarchist group friendly to providing space for the rest of us to participate. Even if one doesn't see the strategic value in disrupting the convention, I continue to urge people to give serious thought to the possibilities such a gathering has for spreading propaganda, networking, and messaging to the movement and general public. There's a very different cost-benefit at play when you're talking about whether to go and participate in protests others have laid the ground work for versus whether to spend months mobilizing. Just the opportunity to distribute thousands of well produced flyers or newspapers that will be taken back to hundreds of communities throughout the country is invaluable.
May 14 2008 16:14
#5
Alot of the things your saying pgh are things I've come to realize and have been thinking about since I first found out about this. As I said, I've never been to a protest, or involved in any sort of community organizing for that matter, but some of the thoughts I've heard regarding the effectiveness of the perspective the major organizers are taking to this and recent events have been really insightful and have had me thinking. I think the one question I have is "How can we turn these events into what would be perceived as worthwhile". By that, I mean how can we prevent this activist and community "drop off" as you said, from occurring, and also, what can we do to transform this event from the same old "we're here to fuck shit up" event, which is the perspective it's taking at the present time, into a "we're here to show you how to take control of your life" event. I think the latter would be a much more effective perspective for us to take, especially if we could find ways to put it in the real life context of the elections and how they really do nothing to change anyone's lives. As I said, I'm new to the whole organizing scene, if you will, so the "how" of these questions is something that is completely beyond me.
May 14 2008 18:12
#6
papercalypso, I think that's the question a lot of us are grappling with. I've lurked on here for awhile because I really like a lot of the positions people are fighting for, the serious nature of the discussions, the lack of flamebaiting and trolls, and what I think is a lot of peoples views that if we're serious about wanting a different world we need to be serious and deliberate about our politics. At the same time I'm still formulating my own views on things and haven't settled too much, and I'm not sure how much my own views align with the dominant views of those associating with the platformist tradition and it's associated groups.
In general I think the questions you asked- how can we make these worthwhile, how can we communicate effectively, how can it be different than some events there are worthwhile critiques of, and how can we make sure people engaged in a one-off event stick around and become more directly involved locally, ultimately come down to a leadership of ideas, a leadership of action, and a generous and thoughtful approach to dealing with others who are or may be allies. People get involved in mass actions for a diversity of reasons, but
If you blow these things off completely those folks who move on, or no longer see the point in a mass protest don't have anything to move on to. Those who want to be involved in more than a mass protest (but still identify with the reasons people participate) feel alienated because there's this artificial division (and often arrogant) atttitude where people blather about how they're serious because they do community organizing and someone else blathers how they're serious because they put the body on the line against riot cops and the state. It's a political convention for christsakes, who's for it? how does it not symbolize us "giving" the right to run our lives to the state. Critique is great, but engagement and alternatives in these situations are better.
This is one of the problems I've had with the anarchist movements orientation towards the anti-war movement. Too much has been positioned around what liberals are doing, critiquing the events they put on, calling for radical blocs within those events, arguing they should do thing X that we like, etc. Not saying that stuff isn't needed, but we win people over when we provide a superior alternative we can tangibly point to as what should be happening. It's not enough to say, this event is sterile/a cattle march/all about fundraising/doesn't pose a threat to the system/looks scary and is off-putting to most people/doesn't communicate what we stand for/doesn't deal with systemic critiques/etc, You've got to focus on showing, not telling.
I think the RNC is a great example of a massive opportunity for those who favor utilization of confrontational tactics, and want to put forward a direct democracy message, but aren't hyped necessarily about doing a black bloc utilizing random disruption and property damage. One of the great things about a blockade strategy is it creates a lot more possabilities for messaging and it has the possability of direct interactions with the public and media. It doesn't depend on looking scary to succeed.
What do I want to see at the RNC? I'd love to look out over a bunch of smart, creative, militant blockades by folks who don't look scary, with well crafted direct democracy and anarchist messages, well put together literature, people ready and prepared to talk to the media, people locking down getting interviewed, and then some good reportbacks afterwards that contrast the approaches different groups took, why, and what the experience meant for them.
May 14 2008 19:55
#7
One thing I don't really understand in this situation is the idea that a blockade will accomplish some sort of goal. What goal does preventing, as Cindy Milstein recently put it, "a glamorized party" (I'm paraphrasing) from occuring. Her point was that at least during the wto protest and the anti-globalization protests, there was some sort of decision making that we were trying to prevent from occurring, and we succeeded, but in this situation, we would be stopping nothing but essentially a red carpet event of the designated parties, which seems silly to me. Even if it's done in a "non-scary" way, the point still seems lost, when we could be focusing our energy and attention on networking and reaching out to the thousands of people that are bound to be there, whether they will be outraged and angry or joyful and celebrating. In either case, we have the ability to focus their attention to outlets for this joy and rage, and show them that they have more power over their lives than any politician ever will.
Here's the video of Milstein speaking at the NY anarchist book fair. I think she definitely brings up some good issues:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3162255534532924685&hl=en
May 14 2008 20:14
#8
Tacks wrote:
the perfect event at which to plant your FBI supergrass!
So wash your cock lads!
May 14 2008 21:44
#9
Ya. My group had a two hour discussion with Cindy about this very issue- what is the motivation? And I agree she brings up good points. I'll just make two points I see as relevant.
1: meta-goal aside it's happening and it's going to be big and so there are opportunities in conjunction with it solely as a result of the work that hundreds of people are putting into it and these justify groups taking a look at participating for a whole slew of reasons (building organizational capacity, propaganda, networking, etc).
2: I think she's making a mistake of seeing the same type of mobilization happening and then just comparing the situation with wto style meetings, seeing some element as absent and therefore rejecting a premise for disruption as legit.
The case for disruption at the RNC, to me personally, is that the conventions are one of the major events in this country that legitimize the current political process. It's a culmination of sorts with the largest gathering of political elites, and most media coverage, of anything related to the election. And what happens has repercussions on "politics" in general, even if who's nominated isn't in doubt. Hell, Obama became famous just for a speech at the dnc. An anarchist mobilization against this, with revolutionary messaging of rejecting "representative" democracy and being for replacement of this system with actual democracy and freedom, worker self-management, etc, provides a sharp contrast of ideas. If the blockades succeed at keeping significant numbers of the thousands of delegates out (something I view as a legit possability) you've got millions of people watching TV of mostly empty meeting halls, a lot of coverage of these blockades in progress. I think that will capture some peoples imagination and shift the view of what is possible in this country, and even if we get slammed in the media it will cause a lot of folks to look into who these anarchists are.
I see the conventions as more legitimate than say protesting at the presidential inaugeration. I'm also more skeptical than her (I think) about the degree to which those finance meetings were actually decision-making bodies. The occassions where the actual negotiations waited until the meetings it wasn't typically by choice, but rather that there were pre-existing divisions that weren't bridgable and the meetings themselves because last ditch efforts- something the protests could help stymie, but to be honest I don't really know the degree to which the events impacted the gatherings themselves at the time. I think the far more important and effective impact was the creation of a movement that created pressure on the ruling class to prove it's legitimacy. I think a movement for direct democracy has the same potential, and so gatherings themselves are important. I"m at work so this isn't as articulate as I'd hoped. Hope I made some sense.
May 15 2008 22:14
#10
I agree that there are still plenty of opportunities to network and distribute literature, this is an obvious fact that will be true no matter what the overall gist of the event may be. However, I think that the point remains that we need to be honest and thoughtful of where our weaknesses lie, and I think that right now our weakest area is developing a constructive and widely understandable approach to opposing the powers that be. Sometimes I think we might lose sight of the fact that our movement is one of the people, and that in order for it to be successful, the message has to be one that can be widely understandable to society as a whole. If our current goals are successful, yes there will be media coverage of our success, but I think what we may be forgetting is the general audience won't be viewing these as a success. They will be viewing them as an attack by an group of outsiders, because of the fact that nearly the entirety of our society personally identifies with this process. Though a prevention of it occurring would of course be viewed as a success in our eyes, because we know why this process must be stopped, the large majority of the US has no idea. If instead, we were to focus on building up alternatives, which I think are much more understandable and acceptable ideas in our society right now, and the media is then forced to cover the alternatives, our force would be much more effective. I guess as I'm writing this, I'm starting to realize the necessity for both to co-exist, because of the fact that the media is much more inclined to focus on the negative rather than the positive, so there must exist a mechanism for getting their attention. The point I think I'm trying to make, however is that the vast majority of the energy being expended is being expended in the confrontational aspect of this event, as is illustrated by the training that will occur beforehand in street tactics and blockades (which I will be attending, by the way), rather than the constructive aspect of workshops and skill sharing. In fact, to my knowledge, there is no effort whatsoever going into this aspect at the RNC protests, which is why I've chosen to attend the DNC.
Sorry for the long-windedness, but in summary, I think we should be focusing on what we can build up rather than what we should tear down. Furthermore, don't get me wrong, the confrontation tactics must still exist, because of as you said, they put pressure on the ruling class and do contribute to the building of a movement, but I think these two tactics can co-exist, and I also think that one is being completely neglected.
May 20 2008 13:33
#11
http://articles.citypages.com/2008-05-14/news/moles-wanted/
Quote:
Once he arrived home from the Hennepin County Courthouse, where he’d been served a gross misdemeanor for spray-painting the interior of a campus elevator, the lanky, wavy-haired University of Minnesota sophomore flipped open his phone and checked his messages. He was greeted by a voice he recognized immediately. It belonged to U of M Police Sgt. Erik Swanson, the officer to whom Carroll had turned himself in just three weeks earlier. When Carroll called back, Swanson asked him to meet at a coffee shop later that day, going on to assure a wary Carroll that he wasn’t in trouble.Carroll, who requested that his real name not be used, showed up early and waited anxiously for Swanson’s arrival. Ten minutes later, he says, a casually dressed Swanson showed up, flanked by a woman whom he introduced as FBI Special Agent Maureen E. Mazzola. For the next 20 minutes, Mazzola would do most of the talking.
“She told me that I had the perfect ‘look,’” recalls Carroll. “And that I had the perfect personality—they kept saying I was friendly and personable—for what they were looking for.”
What they were looking for, Carroll says, was an informant—someone to show up at “vegan potlucks” throughout the Twin Cities and rub shoulders with RNC protestors, schmoozing his way into their inner circles, then reporting back to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, a partnership between multiple federal agencies and state and local law enforcement. The effort’s primary mission, according to the Minneapolis division’s website, is to “investigate terrorist acts carried out by groups or organizations which fall within the definition of terrorist groups as set forth in the current United States Attorney General Guidelines.”
May 20 2008 14:52
#12
Could the energy being put into organising these one days protests also be used to form a federation of class struggle groups across the states working with a common purpose?
May 21 2008 08:44
#13
newyawka, that's really crazy, but it comes as no surprise at all. This is to be expected now in our age of surveillance and terrorism. I think it's time for us to fight fire with fire though. It's the next logical process for us.
Personally, I'm off the opinion the effort spent organizing these rituals could be far better spent doing actual workplace or community organizing. That being said, demos can be a lot of fun (I've been to my fair share), but I've come to believe that they achieve very little and do little more than perpetuate the left-wing/anarchist ghetto.