> I'd like to see some examples of this "left-opportunism." I gather that
> Burford is referring to anarchist elements such as the black bloc, who
> simply operate on the principle of self-organization. If Burford bothers
> to do any research on the black bloc, such as talking to non-anarchist
> radicals who participated at A16 or Quebec City, he'll discover that
> most folks had a positive view of our work and our mutual aid towards
> fellow protesters.
> =================
> There was left opportunism in Seattle as well as a lot of competitive egoism [our own
> refracted form of capitalist behavior]. Naming names accomplishes nothing, the
> egomaniacs know who they are. I'm sure the same occurred in DC and Prague and
> Melbourne and Quebec. This is an immense gender issue as well, the problem, as usual,
> being white males who have all the answers.
Or white females who condemned other activists when the cameras were rolling.
> Wow! Doing the work of the cops already. Anarchists have been very
> open-minded about working with Marxists in the anti-globalization
> movement, but it seems that the old back-stabbing tactics of old are
> being brought out.
> ================
> Well we need to look out for provocateurs a lot more now, since the capitalists and
> their proxies have their hair up. Escalate the power of our arguments, the PD and
> violence will [if they haven't already] hit the point of diminishing returns real
> quick and in inverse proportion to how our arguments lose explanatory power with the
> imagination and hopes of potential allies.
Sure, I agree that we need to be on the lookout for provocateurs. But it's one thing to keep an eye out for these people and quite another to devalue somebody's resistance by saying that agent provocateurs were the ones behind an act. This way of thinking was stupidly demonstrated after Seattle, when a few activists simply couldn't comprehend that some anarchists would deliberately destroy property for political reasons. They had to go write articles that blamed the p-d on undercover cops.
> If Burford is going to denounce demonstraters who are masked, I suggest
> that he start with the Zapatistas. Masking up at a demo offers several
> advantages, the most important one being leaderless anonymity. On
> Sunday, at the World Bank demo here in DC, I spent a few minutes
> harassing an undercover Fed who was videotaping us. You would think that
> an intelligent guy like Burford would look back at COINTELPRO and the
> Palmer Raids and figure out that we need new ways to protect folks from
> being put easily into the files of the State.
> ==============
> Dude they have a file on you already. A mask accomplishes nothing. don't tell me
> anarchists are afraid of the state; that's clearly an obstacle of your desire to
> deconstruct it. No doubt masks help the Zapatistas in their situation, but neither
> Ghandi, MLK or Sacco and Vanzetti wore masks.
They have a file on me, which is why I don't wear a mask. I'm also not very likely to throw shit at the cops or destroy property. But there are others who don't want to be known, who want anonymity to do illegal actions, and don't relish the idea of getting their face on TV so their boss recognizes them and fires them.
What Ghandi, MLK or Sacco and Vanzetti did are irrelevent. There is no need to make a "dead leader on a pedestal" argument here.
I think what Marcos said about the masks is relevent. He said that nobody noticed the Indians until they wore a mask. With a mask, they gained visibility. Given the amount of attention paid to black bloc masks, by police and protesters alike, it seems to work for us too. We've gained visibility.
> This is an incredibly sectarian statement that goes beyond anything I've
> seen lately. Conspriacy against the movement? You wouldn't have a
> movement if it wasn't for the hard organizing work of those who Burford
> condemns.
> ==================
>
> Reflexivity alert!!
OK. What evidence exists for this conspiracy? Why would these folks conspire against a movement that they are part of and one which they help organize?
> The charge of "provocateur" is a serious one. At least, it's an
> ideological blinder which prevents an ideologue from understanding why
> some resort to property destruction and violence as tactics. At worst,
> language like this promotes paranoia and suspicion in the movement. It's
> not a constructive way to discuss these issues;--it is divisive.
> ==============
>
> See diminshing returns above....iterate on the reflexivity alert too.
Alright, then let's talk about pacifist provocateurs who conspire to make our movements ineffective and powerless. The charge of provocateur has been frequently lodged against the black bloc and others who engage in mitlitant tactics. I've often wondered if anybody has ever considered that the capitalist class and the cops have an interest in making sure that the pacifists are seen as the legitimate voice of dissent. Given that property destruction has helped our movement grow and gain attention, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the capitalists and the police to fund the pacifists? It's not like the pacifists ever made the news when they dominated the various Left movements. They've done thousands of protests against nuclear weapons and war, but they've never cracked page 1 of the newspaper.
I'm not saying that pacifism is a waste of time. I embrace the "diversity of tactics" approach, which means that I appreciate the work of pacifists. But those who seek to throw the term "provocateur" around loosely must understand that it could be used in to criticize pacifists.
<< Chuck0 >>
Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Homepage -> http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/home/
INTERNATIONALISM IN PRACTICE
An American soldier in a hospital explained how he was wounded: He said, "I was told that the way to tell a hostile Vietnamese from a friendly Vietnamese was to shout ‘To hell with Ho Chi Minh!’ If he shoots, he’s unfriendly. So I saw this dude and yelled ‘To hell with Ho Chi Minh!’ and he yelled back, ‘To hell with President Johnson!’ We were shaking hands when a truck hit us."
(from 1,001 Ways to Beat the Draft, by Tuli Kupferburg).