If anybody is paying Stratfor for this "intelligence," then they should ask for their money back, because this is just one big mess of disinformation. The critics of the anti-capitalist movement are very interested these days in writing our obituary; little do they understand that our movement is much broader and international than they understand.
First of all, this report implies several things which are untrue: 1) that the activists are disorganized, 2) that we've stopped protesting out of respect for the victims of the 9/11 atatcks; and 3) that we fear the police's "no-nonsense posture." These arguments grossly misrepresent the movement that I know something about as an organizer. First of all, the organizers of the movement are not "disorganized." The Anti-Capitalist Convergence continued with a week of activities in late September that culminated in a respectable anti-capitalist march against the war. Let's not forget that the police were expecting 100,000 protestors for the protests that were supposed to happen against the World Bank and IMF. Those people have not gone away. There will be several anti-capitalist protests around the world this month, including dozens today against the WTO. These protests won't be huge for one important reason: our movement recently directed most of its resources towards a huge protest that didn't happen because the World Bank and IMF cancelled their meetings. We must also recognize that many anti-capitalists are also doing anti-war activism, so we have a full plate these days. Secondly, we have not stopped protesting out of respect for the victims of 9/11. All of us are saddened by what happened that day, but we also know that the World Bank opened its doors the next day and the stock market resumed trading a week later. The Anti-Capitalist Convergence shifted the focus of its protest in recognition that the World Bank and IMF had cancelled their meetings. Only a few of the *reformist* groups within the movement stated that they had paused because of the 9/11 attacks, but they represent a minority tendency within the movements. Thirdly, none of the activists I know have cut back on their street tactics because of an "intolerant police posture." Remember that we were already preparing ourselves for the police to gas us and beat us. We have used militant tactics since 9/11 and we have noticed no difference in how we are treated by the police. They are just as violent and brutal as before.
There has been much rhetoric of late from the critics of the movement that we have gone "quiet." If we've seemed quiet, it's because we were *between* major anti-globalization protests. This pause was going to happen even if 9/11 hadn't happened. If the major protests had gone on against the World Bank and IMF in September, the media would now be writing stories about how our movement was growing. Those large protests didn't happen because the World Bank and IMF *postponed* their meetings. There have been several anti-capitalist protests since September, but they were covered by a media that is preoccupied with spitting out U.S. propaganda about the war. If the media doesn't cover protests, than the movement will certainly seem "quiet."
This article also suggests that the activist community has "fractured" over certain issues. Yes, there is disagreement about issues, but this has always been the case. It's hard to say that the movement has now become "fractured" because it has always been decentralized and diverse. You would think that the folks at Stratfor were versed in the concept of "Net War," which is what the organizational model and strategy of the anti-glob has been modeled on for several years. The anti-globalization movement has always been a convergence of movements, tendencies, and networks. I know that some activists mistakenly think that it is *one* movement, but they are confused.
Stratfor then goes on to make some amusing observations about the anarchist involvement in these protests. They state that "Now a recent fusion of the anti-globalization message with protests against the war in Afghanistan is giving life to a radical anarchist strain called anti-authoritarianism." Anti-authoritarianism is not a radical anarchist strain, it is a basic principle of anarchism. Yes, the anarchists and other anti-authoritarians are injecting a *class war* message into the anti-war movement. That fact and the interest among activists in rejecting the word "peace" are new factors that Stratfor should really be reporting on.
The anti-WTO protests in New York City will probably be small today. That's understandable given that the orginal protest venue now sits under mounds of rubble. Even before 9/11, the organizers of today's protests faced a large hurdle in that their event was happening soon after the World Bank and IMF protests. The call for protests today against the WTO envisoned many local protests around the world, similar to the days of protests that are known to activists as "J18" and "N30." One of the N30 protests that happened in Seattle became quite notorious.
This report from Stratfor also doesn't give much supporting evidence for its thesis that this polarization about violence has happened among movement activists. Sure, some of the reformists have become more vocal about nonviolence, but that is mostly in the context of the new U.S. war. Other activists seem to be in the "diversity of tactics" camp. I know of no activists, especially anarchists, who are in the "absolute violence" camp. I know many of the militant activists who do the black bloc and I've heard zero rhetoric about violence being the only way to effect social change. Stratfor is engaging in sheer fantasy here.
Since Stratfor isn't going to offer up any evidence, I will.
Several black blocs took place during the protests of the weekend of September 29th and 30th. The biggest one took place during the Anti-Capitalist Convergence march, which went from the Capitol to the World Bank. This march was met with a large police presence which periodically attacked folks in the march. On several occasions, members of the black bloc tussled with the police, at one point knocking the Chief of Police onto his butt. After the march ended at the World Bank, the police decided to enclose several hundred people who hadn't left and refused them exit from the park. The black bloc met and decided to not attempt a break through the police lines, because that would have left many of the more nonviolent and non-Black Bloc exposed to police violence. Eventually the police decided to escort everybody to another protest. The next day another anti-war coalition conducted a large march against the war. A black bloc was organized for this march with the intention of providing security from neo-nazis who had been rumored to be thinking of counter-protesting. This black bloc was nonviolent.
Stratfor should be commended for trying to explain to people what is happening within the anti-globalization movement, but they need to do more research. There are some big arguments happening within the movements, but that has always been the case. The anti-globalization and anti-capitalist movements may not be making the front page these days, but that is because the media's attention is on the war and because we are between major anti-globalziation protests. It's also an exaggeration to say that activists are worried about the police after 9/11. The police were *already* using a zero tolerance policy before 9/11. That has not changed. What has changed is two things. One is that the police numbers are spread pretty thin. The other change, which is what really concerns activists, is the increase in spying and surveillance.
We haven't gone away and we're not dead.