Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999 01:17:50 -0500 From: Diane <feralsage-AT-geocities.com> Subject: [Fwd: RE: A POLL......] Since everyone else seems to be posting their responses to this list, I will post the response I sent earlier to Gumby. Diane -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: A POLL...... Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:02:34 -0500 From: Diane <feralsage-AT-geocities.com> To: porkpie3-AT-hotmail.com YEA! (with comments on the question in relation to Seattle) In my opinion, Seattle worked for a number of reasons. Among them: 1) It was the organizing feat of the century, bringing together somewhere around 100,000 people from all over the world (this despite Amerikan Immigration's efforts at the border to exclude suspected potential demonstrators). 2) It gathered together in one place the representation of a wide spectrum of reasons to say "no to the WTO" -- perspectives that people don't usually consider in relation to one another, largely because they are posed in the mainstream media as competing "special interests." In Seattle they all seemed to be saying pretty much the same thing -- No to WTO. (Elaborating connections among all the perspectives and issues is the difficult work that remains to be done, but we have at least been given a taste of civil society.) 3) The independent media made its world debut, taking control of the production of information and functioning so well in this context that mainstream news services were getting a significant amount of their information from the indy media centre -- meaning that they were forced to report on the excessive use force by storm troopers against non-violent protesters, or be content to be scooped by the indy media. (I expect that some who participated in putting together the indy media coverage will be receiving tempting offers to be co-opted.) 4) Despite the violence that actually drew the mainstream media's attention (reflecting what they intend to promote), due to the skillful intervention of independent media producers in the symbol-slinging, the event was characterized more by the non-violence of the demonstrators than by their violence (which was, in any case, overshadowed by that of the police, national guard and who-knows-what-else). The images of non-violent protesters being shot and gassed by storm troopers, and the reports of victimized non-violent protesters -- as well as those of Seattle residents who witnessed egregious violence on the part of Darth Vader (TM) wanna-bees against helpless victims -- snapped a lot of people out of their lethargy. But I think we would be making a mistake if we focus on the role of any specific type of action as either "useful" or "not useful" -- or, for that matter, on media representation of these. Too much discussion will slow our momentum. IMHO, we should be focusing on organizing and educating people about the dangers of globalized "free trade" to the survival of the planet that sustains them. 5) Overall, I agree with the idea, which I once read expressed by the Mothers and Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo and which I hope I'm conveying somewhat faithfully: that one can be devoted to non-violent action, and still support all movements for human freedon and dignity -- even those that use the tactics of violence because they have no other recourse. The focus is not upon the actions people take to gain their freedom, but firmly upon the architects and agents of repression. The fact that a few people (whether agents-provocateurs or not) intended to smash up a Starbuck's -- as worthy a target as any -- and were held off by non-violent protesters should not be used to show that there is "division in the ranks" of the "Anti-WTO forces." I saw the non-violent protesters as having taken advantage of the propaganda value in a sitution that could have been used to discredit them. 6) Beyond Seattle, the tradition of property destruction as a form of protest against oppression is an ancient and honourable one. Sabotage, for example, is a form of protest available to any exploited worker -- whether as an individual or in a group. It is perfectly suited to the needs of industrial workers because: it costs nothing (in fact, if done correctly, it's the corporation that pays); it doesn't require a lot of organizing meetings -- helpful when you end up drop-dead tired at the end of the day just from "earning a living"; industrial workers have the best access to both the works and the monkeywrenches. Besides giving the system the boot through sabotage, there is Creative Destruction, which is the artistically-rendered transformation of what should-never-have-been into what-no-longer-is. I don't connect most property destruction of these types with violence. There is also another kind of property destruction that usually does involve violence: the destruction of large, well-guarded munitions factories, oil rigs, etc. I don't hear enough about these types of actions to form an opinion on them. Diane -------- Original Message -------- From: "gumby cascadia" <porkpie3-AT-hotmail.com> Subject: A POLL...... Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 02:54:54 GMT I'd like to take a poll on this here listserve........ ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF "PROPERTY DESTRUCTION" AS A VIABLE TACTIC, please answer YEA! ALL THOSE WHO THINK PROPERTY DESTRUCTION IS VIOLENT AND NON-PRODUCTIVE please answer NAY! If you have "mitigating circumstances" or comments (brief), please include them, also. Please direct your responses to me personally so as not to clog this listserve. I will post the results on the list, soon. Thanks, Gumby ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005