> Yes, you can, but using democratic processes doesn't automatically endow
> you with what you need, most importantly, _a current (i.e., not
> outdated!] list of contact persons who are themselves good local
> organizers with good phone trees and mailing lists_. That's what you
> must work to develop, _whatever your political persuasion or process_,
> reformist or revolutionary, anarchist or socialist or Green or Christian
> pacifist or whatever.
I understand the importance of being organized, but while the WWP may vacuum up contacts quietly from their fundraising activities, anarchist groups and campaigns tend to be more decentralized.
Speaking for myself, one of my better skills is as a networker. You don't build protests and websites with 3.5 million hits by not being organized.
> I commend more than 2,000 anarchists who showed up for direct action in
> September last year. Liberal NGOs and unions reacted to 9.11 as you
> expect them to react, that is, by retreating, and that's no surprise.
> Anarchists can't count on them to be their constant allies.
Thank you.
The reaction by the NGOs was not as consistent as is perceived. Not all of them wanted to cancel the protests.
Anarchists are careful about working with NGOs and unions, but we were trying to build a coalition with them. The IAC wasn't doing that--they organized their own protest to compete with the protests organized by the MGJ and ACC coalitions. In fact, on the afternoon of 9-11, I and several other anarchists, were supposed to have a meeting with folks from religious groups and reps from the AFL-CIO. Needless to say, the meeting didn't happen, and things fell apart from there.
> At 3:35 PM -0500 11/21/02, Chuck0 wrote:
>
>> Of course, we are measuring the effectiveness of organizations here by
>> how well they can turn out a mass national mobilization. Not all
>> activists agree that this is the smartest strategy.
> What's most desirable and what's possible in the USA today are
> different. We can't hope for a general strike against the war here and
> now, to take just one example. Mass national mobilization is not the
> only method to be used, but left-wingers of any stripe should not
> neglect it either.
I don't base my activism on "hoping for" thing to happen, or guessing if the historical conditions are right. I believe in taking risks, thinking big, and going out there to make change happen.
Why can't we organize a general strike?
> At 3:35 PM -0500 11/21/02, Chuck0 wrote:
>
>> Having phone trees and databases of local contacts are important, but
>> perhaps Yoshie doesn't understand that other activists using more
>> current techniques can use mailing lists, websites, and so on to do
>> outreach and organize. I'll take a national decentralized network
>> where each person involved is an organizer over a centralized
>> organization any day of the week.
> Mailing lists and websites are not useful without databases of local
> contact persons who are themselves organizers (not just activists)
> scattered nationwide. You have to get people to sub to your mailing
> lists, and you have to direct them to check out your websites.
> Otherwise, you are simply putting your ware on the cyber-shelf, just
> hoping that folks will happen on it. That's too passive.
Passive? I don't think you understand how "net wars" activism works.
But I understand your point.
Chuck0
------------------------------------------------------------ Personal homepage -> http://chuck.mahost.org/ Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/
AIM: AgentHelloKitty
Web publishing and services for your nonprofit: Bread and Roses Web Publishing http://www.breadandrosesweb.org/
"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees."
-- Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian (UK)