Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:36:36 -0400 From: Chuck0 <chuck-AT-tao.ca> Subject: [i-news] From Seattle to Prague and Beyond! The following is the lead editorial from the new issue of Anarchy: a journal of desire armed. >From Seattle to Prague and Beyond! The events of the last year have changed the face of the contemporary political spectrum. For the first time since early in the last century anarchists are beginning to be heard and taken seriously by large numbers of people around the world. Of course, most mainstream media attention is still devoted to denouncing, dismissing or belittling anarchist ideas and actions. This is only to be expected when huge corporations control the vast majority of communications over entire continents. What is really new is that anarchist resistance has grown and become so vocal that it can no longer be ignored as it has been since the '60s. (And even in the turbulence of the late 1960s, although anarchists got some attention—especially within the anti-war movement, anarchists were so few in number and often so inarticulate that they had a minimal impact on events.) With the growth and rising militance of the global anti- globalization movement in Seattle, Davos, Washington D.C., Melbourne, and now Prague, it has become clear that there is an increasingly significant number of anarchists involved in all of the most crucial areas of this resistance. Libertarian forms of organization have achieved widespread acceptance within this resistance. Anarchist goals—the destruction of neoliberal institutions, along with the destruction of capitalism and the state—are becoming increasingly visible and gaining adherents. And a clear majority of the most militant participants around the world appear to be anarchists. Yet it is precisely at this time that many leftists have begun calling for the abandonment, or at least a significant slowdown, of the now frequent, international mass-mobilizations confronting neoliberal institutions around the world. The major arguments for slowing down or abandoning this, so far, very fruitful strategy are several. They include criticisms that (1) mobilizing masses of people so frequently in different locations is elitist, can't be sustained and will lead to burn-out; that (2) mobilizing for mass confrontations with neoliberal institutions means neglecting local and regional organizing at home; that (3) as these confrontations with global capitalist institutions continue the level of repression will escalate to the point where the costs of resistance outweigh the benefits; and that (4) radical goals of abolishing capitalism and the state outright are being lost amid the many more limited calls for "fair trade" within capitalism and defenses of national sovereignty against globalist capitalism. As with any statements about huge, complex social movements there will usually be some grain of truth within any criticisms that might be made. However, the overriding agenda hidden behind these current criticisms would appear to quite possibly be an increasing fear that the traditional ideologies, organizational forms and leaderships of the left are being left behind. In effect, the anti-globalization movement is being not so subtly asked to subordinate itself to those who want to channel the movement in their own preferred directions. Thus the spontaneity of—and libertarian organizational forms taken by—anti-globalization resistance are not just a threat to, but a negation of, the leadership hierarchies of traditional leftist organizations. The free-for-all contest of diverse groups working, more or less, together against globalist neo-liberalism—without the burden of any hegemonic theoretical or ideological goals—eschews the heretofore almost inescapable least-common-denominator orientation of mobilizations of mass resistance (in North America, especially). While the diverse tactics of confrontation—from nonviolent resistance to creative symbolic actions to active and directly physical attacks—resist any easy, premature interpretation of the resistance, leaving it open to many levels of participation. So, it might be true that (1) mobilizing masses of people so frequently in different locations could be elitist, unsustainable, and likely to lead to burn-out of activists if the same small group of people were required to organize and turn out for each event. However, one of the biggest strengths of anti-globalization resistance has been the incorporation of ever more new participants from around the world. The fact that the largest mobilizations have been organized in different places each time has meant that local radicals in each region have had the valuable opportunity to participate intimately in their planning, organizing and realization, while any radicals unable or uninterested in travel ling to the primary sites of confrontation have had multiple opportunities to either participate in or organize a multitude of satellite protests around the globe. It might be true that (2) mobilizing for mass confrontations with neoliberal institutions could mean neglecting local and regional organizing at home if the mobilizations were the only activities in which participants engaged. However, a closer look at the actual activities of participating radicals would reveal that many are already heavily involved in local interventions on their home turf. And many of the rest wouldn't be interested in traditional leftist organizing even if they didn't participate in anti- globalization events. The biggest problem for the critics here seems to be that those radicals who are involved in local interventions aren't doing the type of traditional leftist organizing the critics prefer. It also might be true that (3) as these confrontations with global capitalist institutions continue the level of repression will escalate. This should be expected. Whenever the business-as- usual of capital and state are genuinely threatened we should expect attacks on radicals to escalate. However, this is primarily an argument for constantly inventing new and more creative forms, methods and means of targeting those we are confronting, not of abandoning confrontation merely to avoid repression. And, finally, it appears patently untrue that (4) radical goals of abolishing capitalism and the state outright are being lost amid the more limited calls for "fair trade" within capitalism and defenses of national sovereignty against globalist capitalism. In fact, many more people have now actually heard these radical demands raised, than would have ever noticed them hidden in the programs and theoretical publications of formal leftist organizations— whose actual practices have generally been at odds with these goals anyway. A year ago it was Seattle! Yesterday it was Prague! Tomorrow, the resistance to capital and state is coming to a city near you! -Jason McQuinn
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005