File spoon-archives/aut-op-sy.archive/aut-op-sy_2001/aut-op-sy.0102, message 42


From: "Chris Wright" <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net>
Subject: AUT: Re: Account and Analysis of Inauguration Day RAAB
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:04:52 -0600


Figured I would hit a nerve somewhere.

> >600?  This is the first report I have heard of over 150.  As a
> participant
> >in the demonstrations, not even the Black Block folks I spoke too
> claimed
> >more than 150 people.
>
> I am not sure why you singled this critique out as being particularly
> insightful, because it seems fairly shallow and seems to be based on
> nothing more than vague generalizations. First, I was not there, but from
> everyone I have talked to who was apart of the RAAB, the count of 5-600
> people seems to be pretty consistent and I see no reason to accuse people
> who I respect, trust, and work quite closely with of fabricating these
> numbers. Regardless, the accusation is petty and doesn't really add to
> the overall criticisms.
Which critique?  the Barricada report or the number of people?  The report
was the first major one on Black Block posted here.  The number seemed off
kilter to me and it hit me as odd.  Beyond that, my critique is not an
accusation.  I just thought it seemed exagerated, and the Left is given to
exageration, even among the best of intentions.  We want to have an impact
and do things.  That's good, but we also need to be accurate.  From what I
have now heard from participants in the Block, anywhere from 4-600 seems
accurate.  Far from being upset, I am glad it was bigger than I had heard
(and from what I had seen).  I would like to see Black Block develop further
because I think it has interesting possibilities.  For my part, i will be
participating in trying to get a conference going on here in Chicago around
anarchist/autonomist/libertarian communist/etc. politics.  we are one of two
possible sites and I hope we can do it.  Far from not needing it, Chicago
desperately needs something to help focus and bring together libertarian
communist elements.

> >This seems a bit like cheerleading, when, from what I
> >could see roaming over the events for 8 hours over a 20 block area, the
> >Black Block/RAAB had virtually no impact and happened to be saved by the
> >demonstrators they had scorned as 'reformists'.
> >I am not trying to be quarrelous, so much as I did not see anything to
> >justify this appraisal by barricada.  In fact, it seemed quite apparent
> that they had no significant political impact and were rather more rescued
by
> the lucky intervention of two other marches.
>
> I don't think that anyone would dispute that contingents of reformist
> demonstrators (I don't see the point in using single quotations around
> the word "reformists", unless there is some indication that these
> demonstrators were something beyond reformist) bailed members of the
> black bloc out at 14th and K, but how does this single event define the
> actions of the RAAB over an 8-hour period as having "virtually no
> impact"?
Some were, some weren't.  The label seemed too much of a blanket, hence the
quotes.  It does not define the entire activity, but it indicates a problem
of getting isolated from the larger events.  Nor am I expressing hostility,
but concern that activism for its own sake, 'fucking shit up' for its own
sake, leads to adventurist kinds of actions that endanger acitivists and
make them easy targets, rather than an effective lightining rod, as in
Seattle.

as for impact, I spent 8 hours out there two and managed to not see anyone
from Black Block until everyone began to leave.  And I moved up and down the
length of the protest at Freedom Plaza repeatedly.  that's what I meant by
no impact.  I should have said 'no impact that was felt at the largest parts
of the demonstration' maybe.  Maybe they impacted the fringes.  I did not
see it.  Impact would also have meant linking up with some significant
portion of the demonstration and altering the character of the events, but
that did not seem to happen.  I did not mean that Black Block did not meet
people, get seen, provide some alternative presence, but they did not play a
role in shaping the character of the mass of people to the cops or the
inauguration.  It remained, overall, rather passive, if good-spirited.

> Infusing tactical militancy and political radicalism into a mass
> mobilization, even on a small scale, should be considered a positive
> impact. Boldly challenging State repression (and consequently providing
> inspiration and confidence for fellow activists) is a positive impact.
> Building alliances and mutual aid through popular struggle is a positive
> impact.
No disagreement, but I see no reason to see the impact as anything other
than marginal.  I did not say it was a bad or negative impact.  Boldly
challenging also requires a relation to the larger even one is in.  It
requires thinking through when and where to strike.  Getting caught out like
that indicates to me not having thought it through.  A mistake we have all
made, btw, but no less worthy of criticism.  I have received the same
criticism for mistakes of the same kind.  That's a part of learning from
each other.  I am pointing out a problem not to be mean, but to aim at a
critical engagement with people whose strategy I might not agree with , but
whose vitality and basic committments I respect more than most.

> >And the threat that if the
> >Washington streets had not been so wide, they would have really stuck it
> to the Washington Post seems like boasting and bravado.  The idea that 100
> or 600 people could stick it to capital reflects a pretty shallow
> estimation of what overthrowing capital will take.
>
> Does this person really believe that Barricada's critical reflection
> insinuated that a successful act of vandalism against the Washington Post
> would provide even a small blow to capitalism? I can't imagine anyone
> would argue that politically motivated vandalism is anything more than a
> symbolic act (and I think it is also safe to assume that no one believes
> that burning the flag is going to overthrow the State either), and to
> make the point that support for an act of vandalism reflects someones
> "shallow estimation of what overthrowing capital will take" seems
> ridiculous to me.
It was my take on how they presented it in the report.  And I can imagine
it.  I have seen Trots claim that a demo of a few hundred or a few thousand
that drove away a few Kluxers was 'smashing the Klan', a very idiotic
formulation that assumes first that the Klan is the cornerstone of white
privilege and racial oppression, and that driving a few of them away amount
to smashing them.

Vandalism in and of itself is not revolutionary.  Certainly, I have no
problem with any act of vandalism against capital.  But to claim that if
they had a better street situation they would have really sent the Post a
warning seems like bravado.  That may be Barricada's problem, not Black
Blocks.  I have had no indication of that until now.

> >Given the discussions I have heard from the post-J20 meeting of
> 'anarchists, autonomous Marxists, and marxist-humanists', there is a
strong sentiment
> >against politics, against theory, and for just 'fucking shit up'. I know
> >several people from Chicago and New York who participated and they are
> all quite anti-intellectual and anti-theory.
>
> Again, this is a vague generalization, and reflects nothing of the larger
> movement.
Actually, you clipped my qualification.  I spoke not generally, but of
people I know and people I talked to at the demo, but mostly people I know,
since one of them lead a tirade against politics and theory at a conference
designed to discuss exactly that.

Obviously there are always going to be individuals who are
> angry, often times young and inexperienced, and lack theortetical
> framework for their politics. So what?
As a result, of the 100 people left, 70 walked out to go 'talk tactics, not
theory.'  That would make it the majority.

Are we to assume that everyone who
> picked up a gun in times of revolutionary upheavel had a fully
> articulated understanding of the situation, a developed critique of
> capitalist social relations, and a coherent vision of how the
> revolutionary struggle could translate into social liberation? Let's be a
> little realistic here.
Hang on, this was a meeting dedicated to talking politics and theory among
people who consider themselves revolutionary activists with a definite
political orientation, not folks who just got involved yesterday or who
never considered theory before.  And this is no revolutionary upheaval.  And
I wasn;t asking for a coherent vision, but the willingness to struggle
together to share our visions and deepen our political and theoretical bases
together.  At that point, over 2/3 of the people rejected doing exactly what
the conference was set up to do, in the name of dumping theory.  I feel that
I have a very realistic assessment.  I don;t expect everyone to be a
communist or anarchist who chooses revolution, but I expect the
self-proclaimed anarchists and communists to take that idea seriously.
Bakunin, Marx, Dunayevskaya, Debord, James, de Paepe, Malatesta, Tronti,
Bologne, Makhno, etc. all took theory and politics seriously and they would
mean very little to us if they had not.  I expect no less of other
self-proclaimed revolutionaries.  Why should I?  I don;t expect everyone to
be a book worm, but I expect that having made a different political choice,
they might want to think about it and talk about it with others in the same
or similar traditions.

> >They don't need theory, as they
> >see it.  As I see it, that means a return to liberalism, just 'liberals
 with bombs' (in this case, paint bombs, which makes it even more
ridiculous).
>
> Not that I am taking the anti-theory position, but how exactly does a
> lack of theory automatically lead to liberalism? Someone could base their
> political aspirations around the most simplistic and crude revolutionary
> rhetoric, and though this most likely won't translate into effective
> revolutionary strategy, it doesn't necessarily lead to a de facto
> liberalism either. Using the same baseless argument, I can think of any
> number of Marxists who, despite being able to spout dense revolutionary
> theory at the drop of a hat, are quite liberal in reality.
Lack of theory leads to liberalism because unthinking activism relinquishes
critical thought, and critical thought is the basis of revolutionary action.
Lenin may have had the meaning of it all wrong, but he had the idea right
when he said there is no revolutionary action without revolutionary theory
and vice versa.

As for the rest, of course, I know many Marxists like that.  This wasn't a
meeting for those people though.  It was a meeting for revolutionaries to
share ideas.  Your example does not contradict my point, but only shows that
we can have two sides of the same coin, both of which lead to liberalism.
And in the end, it will catch up to both your activism and your ideas.  Some
of that comes from action, some of it comes from .  There is no simple
divorce ot the two.  No action by itself is revolutionary.  it requires
intention.  Intention requires thought.

The self-emancipation of the working class requires the development of the
self-consciousness of the working class, of the we who will liberate
ourselves, requires a bit of thinking.  Glorifying picking up a gun in place
of theory can also glorify exactly what has gone wrong with so many
revolutions.  The Durruti Column could have used more theory, as well as
more guns.  their failure was not in courage or revolutionary will, but in
politics.

> >The abscence of a political perspective, or even the deisre for a
> conscious political perspective is nothing to boast about.  At the same
time, not
> >everyone in the raab has that attitude, and as I said, that is just some
> of the people i know and talked to.  I do know of at least one anarchist
> who stood up at the conference and challenged the "just fuck shit up"
> approach, a young guy from the east coast.
>
> Again, so what? What does any of this have to do with an overall critical
> anaylsis of the anarchist participation in the Inaugural protests? So you
> witnessed some less than intelligent behaviour on the part of certain
> individuals. It happens to me everyday. Get over it.
I attempted to give a report of the Inauguration protests, and the
conference in a limited way because it has a connection.  Some people did
try to link action and ideas that weekend, but some of them did not want any
part of the ideas part, even though they came to a conference dedicated to
just that.  That's what I tried to grasp.  If I did not do it well, that is
one thing.  To fail to see the connection, however, is your problem, not
mine.

> >So, I don't want to over generalize so
> >much as raise the problem of a bad tendency.  If prodded, i would give a
> >rather nasty assessment of the social underpinnings of this kind of
> politcs, but I am probably coming off as hostile enough.
>
> Please do, it might be a bit more interesting (and relevant) to read than
> what you have provided us with so far.
Well, I am sorry a discussion intended to spark a little debate didn't
excite you.  but it did get some response, so it achieved some part of its
end, eh?  as for my thinking about the anti-intellectual tendencies, part of
that critique has been taking place in the further discussion, in part in
the context of privileged white youth and the contradictions of acting both
in rejecting a screwed up world without fully rejecting their privileged
place in it.

It leads to a mixed bag of genuine rebellion and posturing with no thought
to anyone else or to the political issues and tasks we face, both in
relation to being part of a larger struggle and in relation to thinking
about what we have to do to get rid of this society.

The problem is that people who come from privilege and power often act as if
they can change things by force of their will, which, in my opinion, really
represents the fact that they assume that their privileges and power give
them means that do not require ideas that really challenge their own social
position.  They act from an assumption based on their own privilege and get
protection from a certain level of violence by being able to fall back on
that (whether it is better treatment from the police, who probably won't
track them down in their neighborhood as they do working class activists;
who can call on money for lawyers or hope that mom and dad will bail them
out, though obviously not always; who can always opt out at some level and
go back to their privileges, etc.)

That's the short form.   And I have a sick, crying son right now, so I am
going to beg off of the rest of this discussion for tonight.  Catch me
later!

Cheers,
Chris



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005