Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:57:15 -0500
From: Chuck0 <chuck-AT-tao.ca>
Subject: Fwd: Re: "On Trashing and Movement Building" By Michael Albert




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: "On Trashing and Movement Building" By Michael Albert
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 03:13:20 -0500
From: Mark Laskey <kronstadt-AT-juno.com>
Reply-To: aac-AT-lists.tao.ca
To: aac-AT-lists.tao.ca

[ Here is something that I wrote and posted to the Food Not Bombs list
in
response to Micheal Albert's essay "On Trashing and Movement Building"
that is being posted by a few non-violent types to discredit the actions
of militant anarchists. At last year's anarchist bookfair here in
Boston,
I had the ill-fortune of dealing with the pretentious and arrogant
personality of Mr. Albert in scheduling his talk, so admittedly I took a
bit a pleasure in criticizing his essay (which I posted below my
response), hopefully this doesn't shine through in any of my
arguements...       -------MaRK ] 

It is nice that Mr. Albert took the time to offer his own detailed
critical analysis on the controversial topic of the more militant forms
of direct action that took place in Seattle. It is also nice to see him
refrain from much of the sensationalist arguements that many others have
resorted to when they have dealt with this subjct. Overall, I agree with
the purpose of this essay (namely, that we should always be able to step
back and be critical of our actions), however, I have a few
disagreements
of not only the conclusions that he comes up with in this essay, but the
entire context in which he places his arguement within.

Firstly, as with much of the criticisms coming from liberal-left, the
arguement starts off by painting a false picture of the 50,000
demonstrators who made up the opposition to the WTO in Seattle as a
near-harmonious working group with a democratically agreed upon idea of
what forms of protest were to take place, and unfortunately (parroting
much of the mainstream media's spin on the situation), a few bad apples
managed to spoil the whole week's worth of events and severely damage
all
hope of salvaging any sort of sustainable movement. I don't know,
Michael
is one of those sock and sandel kind of guys, so maybe he really
believes
in these wide-spread "mutually respectful ties" between the varying
constituencies on hand and the unspoken democratic tactical
understandings between the thousands of activists. For myself, I am not
a
sock and sandel kind of guy. My perception of the varying constituencies
of demonstrators is a bit less "feel good". Essentially, though we all
came to Seattle against the same common enemy, we did so with everyone
having their own sets of agendas, and their own ideas of how their voice
was going to be heard. This encompassed everything from the far-right to
the revolutionary left. Concerning the democratic validity of the
varying
tactical forms of protest, well, it is quite true that nobody was
consulted over the potential for strategic economic trashings. However,
in pointing this out many proponents of non-violent civil disobedience
overlook one important thing, namely that a great many demonstrators
were
also not consulted over the planned civil disobedience. Many
representatives from various NGOs travelled halfway across the globe to
voice their concerns over the impact of globalization in their home
countries during the Ministerial forums and were downright furious that
they were being blocked from doing so. I saw more than one occasion
where
perfectly legitimate critics of the WTO, some of whom coming from the
poorest regions in the world, were not allowed to voice their protest to
the WTO in the way they deemed most effective (by actually taking part
in
the Ministerial proceedings as a dissenting voice) because they were
unable to make it through non-violent blockades, in many cases
blockaders
would not even engage in any sort of dialogue with the angered
"suit-and-tie demonstrators". Is this not an example of certain
protestors using tactics that are contrary to the means of protest to be
used by another? Was any degree of "coherence, trust and solidarity"
fostered between these two activist constituencies? No. The point I am
trying to make is that there were many levels of tactical antagonism at
work in Seattle, with the window-breaking anarchists receiving far too
much of the spotlight (of course the beauty of the situation for
non-violent activists and liberal leftists is that much of the tactics
that they hold dear, which at one point in history caused nothing but
reactionary disgust amongst a majority of mainstream American society,
now look quite mild and acceptable in comparison to the politically
motivated property destruction of certain factions of militant
anarchists).

If we are going to be completely analytical about how certain tactics
play a dynamic role in popular movement building, we should not pretend
that our arguement holds more weight simply because we pay some sort of
homage to the "the majority" who we perceive to share our views. For all
of the dogmatically non-violent people who claim to be acting in the
interest of "the majority", we should take a step back and ask "the
majority of who?". First off, it would be ridiculous to think that they
are representing "the majority" of Americans, because a majority of
Americans do not support overtly political acts of any kind on the part
of individuals that involves disruption (even non-violent disruption).
Secondly, I am not even all that sure that non-violent civil
disobedience
was adamently supported by "the majority" of demonstrators who made it
out to Seattle, considering that out of 50,000 demonstrators, under
5,000
took part in these actions. And amongst those who did give overwhelming
support to the non-violent civil disobedience, there was all sorts of
disagreements on tactical savvy, ranging from locking-arms and singing
to
building barricades out of garbage dumpsters and overturned police cars.
Comparatively, the more militant forms of protest -- including smashing
windows, clashes with police, spraypainting and barricade building --
enjoyed a far more diverse make-up in regards to race and class (while,
admittingly, remaining predominently youth based), whereas the most
rabid
partisans of dogmatic pacifism (i.e. "the peace police") were almost
always, without fail, white, middle class and politically liberal in
temperment. This may come as a shock to some, but a good many of us
don't
place white middle class liberals as a high priorty in our political
outreach. Just as many non-violent activists had no problem alienating
the many suit-and-tie activists who came to Seattle to use the WTO
Summit
as a forum for their dissenting views by shutting them out of the
meetings, many of us have no problem alienating white middle class
liberals by disregarding their definitions of what constitutes as
"legitimate forms of protest". We do not want to build a movement that
is
dominated by white middle class values, and we do not want to restrict
ourselves to a politically liberal temperment. Unlike liberals, a good
many of us don't get that icky feeling inside when we do something that
is perceived confrontational or alienating to a good many people if in
our hearts we feel passionately that it is the right thing to do. 

There are also other problems with some of the arguements posed in this
essay, such as mystifying some forms of "trashings" as being "organic"
in
nature (such as burning and bombing ROTC buildings during a prolonged
anti-war movement) therefore making them acceptable (or at least
acceptable 30 years later!) and condemning other forms of "trashings" as
"alienating" and "unnecessay". Acting as if most of the people involved
with the "destructive" actions (such as window breaking and
spraypainting) had nothing to do with any the "creative" actions
throughout the week (such as the non-violent blockades, the festive
resistance, etc.). Overlooking the fact that if not for the militant and
"alienating" forms of action that took place in Seattle, the resistance
against the WTO would not have enjoyed the world-wide attention that it
did. Insinuating that these actions "dilluted" the overall political
content of the protests (when in actuality they were partly responsible
for making the WTO a household word). Blaming these actions for the
brutal repression that we all suffered at the hands of the police. And
finally, and this is the most disturbing (but perhaps this was
unintentional), casting relatively small-scale property destruction
authored by anarchists (which was largely symbolic destruction,
considering that if they wanted to achieve large-scale economic
destruction they would have used more than rocks, hammers and crowbars
and it probably would not have taken place in the light of day) in the
same light as Weatherman bombings. 

My feelings on the subject are summed nicely by a quote given by William
Domhoff (from his book "The Power Elite and the State"): 

    "...Liberals, labor, and minorities, despite their great numbers,
never win much against the conservative coalition unless there is a fear
of disruption and violence loose in the land due to the actions of
strikers, civil rights demonstrators, angry rioters in northern ghettos,
or students demonstrating against wars... I am asserting that social
disruption, whether violent or non-violent, is an essential factor in
any
successful challenge to the power structures in the United States."

                                                                         
                          -------------MaRK  


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

On Trashing and Movement Building

By Michael Albert

This is a response to a post-Seattle debate troubling many folks
regarding
movement tactics. As a preface, it goes without saying, I hope, that we
all
understand that as far as violence is concerned, the violent parties in
Seattle were first and foremost the President of the U.S., his
entourage,
the other major heads of state, the leadership of the WTO, etc.
Poverty-inducing violence imposed with a pen trumps a brick breaking a
window every time--not to mention that the former is to defend and
enlarge
injustice, while the latter is to fight it. For that matter, in the
streets
of Seattle, mass media coverage aside, in a large public discussion for
all
statistical or moral purposes the only physical violence was that
perpetrated by police and national guard at the behest of the state.
Pepper
gas, rubber bullets, and truncheons all directed at citizens attempted
to
dissent from vile economic agendas trump broken windows every time on
any
violence meter, much less on one that accounts for motivations. Debate
about movement tactics arises publicly therefore overwhelmingly because
of a
manipulative and distorting mass media. The issue of movement tactics as
it
arises inside social movements, however, gains attention because of
potential implications on future attitudes of activists toward trashing,
property damage, civil disobedience, and other possible demonstration
tactics as well as participation in demonstrations. That said...

Any useful discussion of movement tactics must be about their efficacy
for
movement building, winning short-term demands, and laying a basis for
winning longer term aims. Assessing tactics means evaluating how they
cause
a movement to grow or decline and whether they enlarge or diminish
immediate chances to win some goal.

I have been involved in demonstrations in which trashing grew
organically
from the event's logic and intentions--for example, clearly enunciated
assaults on particular draft boards or ROTC buildings. I have also been
in
demonstrations where trashing was counter-productive and
irresponsible--for
example endangering innocent folks and diluting the message and
solidarity
of the event. Which was true in Seattle?

Seattle was a massive event and those who tirelessly organized it were
committed to legal marches and rallies and also to illegal but
non-violent
civil disobedience. Upwards of 70,000 people attended. In the first days
success was overwhelming and mutually respectful ties developed between
usually fragmented constituencies, (turtles and Teamsters, Lesbian
Avengers
and steel workers). The prospect that civil disobedience would grow was
extremely exciting and optimism was contagious. Movement participation
was
climbing and, amazingly, the official WTO gathering was already
thoroughly
disrupted. The police began to employ gas, clubs, and rubber bullets. At
this point, the highly organized trashers broke off and attacked
windows.
Afterwards they celebrated that due to their mobility and organization
none
was arrested or harmed.

I remember all too vividly some sixties demonstrations in which
over-eager
dissenters would taunt and otherwise provoke police and then disappear,
leaving others, often utterly unprepared families, to bear the brunt of
the
response. I was always far more impressed with the courage of knowing
folks
who could easily see what was coming and escape if they wished to, but
who
instead used their talents to help protect their less well prepared
co-demonstrators, then with the self preservation instincts of those who
brought down repression and then fled the scene. In the sixties, such
trashers' behavior was caught up in a set of mistaken expectations and
hopes. I suspect that the same holds nowadays.

Imagine that the various contingents in Seattle who had provided energy,
song, creativity, and militancy at the rallies and especially at the
civil
disobedience, had then also, on top of that, not gone off breaking
windows
but remained with others shielding them, assisting those who were hurt,
helping those suffering from the gas. This would have capped their
otherwise positive involvement with exemplary behavior on behalf of
their
fellow
demonstrators, rather than tailing off into counter productive window
breaking. The meaning of anarchism conveyed by this would have been
creative militancy plus humanity and solidarity, in tune with the rest
of
the
anarchist involvement in the Seattle demonstrations.

Does this mean, however, that there cannot be a time and place for
confrontation and property damage? No, it doesn't mean that at all, at
least not in my view. Instead, the time and place for such behavior is
when it
will meet widespread approval and increase the power of protest rather
than
providing an excuse for folks to tune out or become hostile to protest.
Up
to the trashing, anarchists in Seattle added energy, creativity, art,
music, and often greatly needed militancy, courage, and steadfastness to
many demonstration venues. They uplifted participants' spirits and
otherwise played a very positive role within the rubric of the
demonstration's guidelines. It was only when some went off breaking
windows
against the demonstration's norms that a problem arose. And we should
note
that it isn't just trashing that is sometimes warranted and sometimes
not.
Sometimes civil disobedience is out of place too. It too can be at odds
with the mindsets of people's current orientation and planning for
events
so that spontaneously undertaking civil disobedience would violate an
event's logic and promise, alienate people who are moving toward
dissent,
and not spur new insight and solidarity but reduce it. Other times,
however, employing civil disobedience makes excellent sense and is even
pivotal to success, as in Seattle, for example. For that matter,
sometimes
even a march can be adventurist; other times is can be the ideal tactic.

In other words, what tactics at an event are warranted and will help a
movement grow and strengthen, and what tactics at an event are
unwarranted
and will hurt a movement and its cause, is very rarely a matter of
unyielding principles but depends almost always on how the event has
been
portrayed and organized, who is at it, what their expectations and
consciousness are, what the event's prospects are for impacting social
outcomes, and how the event and the tactics are likely to be perceived
by
and to impact non-involved constituencies. Regrettably, once activists
enter a trashing mindset, they most often don't care about such
calculations. To trash is good, they feel, exuberantly, because, after
all,
the targets are criminal corporations and damaging them is a step toward
demystifying and destroying them. Anyone against that must be
pro-corporate, they announce. The mindset isn't about discriminating the
impact of possible tactics, but only about what target to hit. But it is
not the acme of wisdom to deduce that McDonalds and Nike are better
targets
than random passersby or a family grocery store. As far as Seattle is
concerned, despite other fantastically valuable contributions to the
event,
for a relatively minuscule number of participants to impose on a massive
demonstration tactics contrary to its
definition was undemocratic behavior that should be transcended in the
future.

The events in Seattle had, before any trashing occurred, already
entirely
hamstrung the WTO. They had already evidenced militant creativity and
creative organization and knowledge. They had already begun to generate
new
allegiances and ties among diverse constituencies. They had already
combined many levels of creative and militant tactics in a mutually
supportive mix. Speeches at rallies already in many instances made the
obvious leaps from opposing free trade to opposing free markets, and
from
opposing global profiteering to opposing capitalism per se. The ground
was
laid for the work we all now need to do. The addition of trashing had no
positive effects. It did not win useful visibility that would otherwise
have been absent. It did not enlarge the number of folks participating
or
empathizing with the demonstration. It did not cause more substantive
information to be conveyed either in the mainstream or on the left. It
did
not respect much less enlarge democracy. What it did do, instead, was
(a)
divert attention from the real issues, (b) provide a pretext for
repression
which would otherwise have been unequivocally seen as crushing
legitimate
dissent, and (c) and arguably most important, cause many to feel that
dissent is an unsympathetic
undertaking in which instead of actors respecting one another, some, at
least, feel that they have the right to undemocratically violate the
intentions and desires of most others.

Just so we are clear: again, the issue isn't is trashing per se good or
bad. Suppose that the trashers hadn't embarked on breaking windows but
had
become a support group for those suffering police assaults, rallying
spirit
and protecting bodies. Suppose that hundreds and then thousands more
students and workers had joined the civil disobedience efforts. Suppose
that the state had used gas and charging cops repeatedly to break up
such
efforts. And suppose in this context a good part of the city's
population
and of the "audience" around the country and a large majority of the
constituencies in
Seattle to demonstrate felt solidarity with the law-breaking
demonstrators.
Now imagine, in this context, that the police charged and folks didn't
run,
but instead suddenly stood their ground. More, suppose they then turned
and
decided it was time to push the police back. Imagine that this led to
battles, and then to cars turned over, barricades built, and so on. The
property damage by protesters in such massive melees would dwarf
anything
committed by the trashers in Seattle and it would no doubt extend beyond
corporate targets and damage even the property of innocents. Some would
say
this couldn't possibly be to the good, but I would say, instead, that as
described this would have a completely different flavor and logic from
the
trashing in Seattle -- and would expand rather than diminish the
involved
movements and constituencies. There is therefore a judgment call in the
use
of tactics.

Sometimes a tactic is wise, other times the same tactic is mistaken.
What
was wrong about the political folks who self-consciously trashed in
Seattle
was that (1) despite their other genuine and valuable contributions to
the
events, regarding trashing their judgment was horribly faulty. And (2)
they
egocentrically thought that their judgment alone was sufficient
justification for them to dramatically violate norms accepted by tens of
thousands of other demonstrators.

Changing society isn't a matter of breaking windows, it is a process of
developing consciousness and vehicles of organization and movement, and
of
then applying these to win gains that benefit deserving constituencies
and
create conditions for still further victories, leading to permanent
institutional change. Cultivating movement coherence, trust, and
solidarity
-- not just in a small affinity group but far more widely -- is a big
part
of this agenda. Coherence, trust, and solidarity are not furthered when
small groups undemocratically violate the agenda of massive
demonstrations
to pursue their private inclinations, even when the small group has a
plausible case for its preferences, unlike in this instance.

The fact that corporations are so vile that attacking them is warranted
if
it will do good, doesn't mean they are so vile that attacking them is
warranted if it will do harm. When I was a college student organizing
against the Vietnam War I used to appear in front of very large and
animated audiences, give long talks, and then field questions. It was a
tumultuous time and I was often asked, for example, "would you burn down
the school
library if it would end the war?" My reply always took more or less this
form -- "What moral midget wouldn't burn down a library to save a
million
lives? Of course I would, in an instant. But there is no connection
whatsoever between burning a library and helping the victims of U.S.
imperialism in Indochina, nor is there any connection between burning a
library and altering the fabric of our own society so that the U.S. no
longer engages in such pursuits. Worse, such behavior would have exactly
the contrary impact, benefiting those committing the vile bombing. Can
we
now please get on to something serious such as how to communicate
effectively to new constituencies about the ills of the war, and how to
build sustained and serious resistance to it, and leave the posturing
and
baiting behind?"

Back then, it was often very brilliant, well-trained, and highly capable
minds that drifted into Weatherman and other such formations. What was
always quite notable was that these individuals could engage carefully,
critically, and caringly in many domains, but reverted to odd leaps of
faith and fancy regarding their out-of-touch lifestyle and "activism"
choices. I really hope we do not have to witness and suffer a replay.

The events in Seattle were stupendously successful in bringing the WTO
into
the awareness of people in the U.S. and all over the world, in making
clear
to tens of millions that there is great opposition and therefore that
there
is something here to look into and have an opinion on, and in laying
seeds
for further effective activism of many diverse and powerful
constituencies
willing to respect and relate to one another, to multiple agendas, and
to
diverse tactical options. This was all achieved, however, not via the
trashing, but in spite of it.

Some of the pronouncements of defenders of the trashing remind me of a
very
brilliant and eloquent friend of mine, who came to my apartment one 1969
night, about 2 AM, and with three or four others snuck in and said "We
are
the Vietcong, we need a place for the night...the revolution is
imminent,
we are underground, don't mind us, go back to sleep. Wake to a new
society." They had as excuse for their delirium that they hadn't done
just one
demonstration, but had been enmeshed in full-time activism for years.
Their
environment was almost exclusively their friends in Weatherman and they
had
all lathered themselves into a well motivated but utterly out of touch
turmoil of hope, rage, desire, paranoia, anticipation, and abstract
rationalization that was so divorced from reality as to render them, so
long
as the mindsets persisted, virtually useless as positive agents of
social
change. These were in many cases the best minds and best hearts of my
generation. So please note: those who read this essay or others about
Seattle or who were there and are angry at the political people who
trashed--do not make the callous and ignorant mistake of thinking the
trashers were by nature anti-political, uncommitted, insensitive, or
unsympathetic, much less police agents. Life is not so simple. It isn't
the
case that those you disagree with are always in some way abhorrent.
These
are overwhelmingly movement people, indeed some of our best movement
people. For those who were involved or supported the trashing to sharply
disparage those who didn't, or vice versa, isn't going to get anyone
anywhere useful. There is misunderstanding on both sides, but the
distance
to unity and progress is much less than the distance was between
"turtles" and
"teamsters" before Seattle. We all ought to be able to quickly bridge
that
gap and agree on the broad logic of how to assess tactics -- if not to
agree on every judgment about every single specific tactic, of course --
and especially on how to abide collective norms at our demonstrations.
This
accomplished we can move on to Philadelphia, NYC, SF, Chicago, Denver,
Miami, LA, Boston, Cleveland, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Detroit, in unity
and
without fear of one another.

I hope those who did trash won't take these words as disparagement of
your
potentials and aspirations. I hope you will seriously consider, instead,
that perhaps with the best intentions you are mistakenly repeating one
part
of sixties movement history--the saddest and least functional part--and
will in reaction rise above the temptations and confusions that
bedeviled
many of the best of my generation.

___________________________________________________________________
Why pay more to get Web access?
Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.