a critique of the march on Sandton

Chuck Munson chuck at tao.ca
Sun Sep 1 15:13:25 PDT 2002


Awesome! Thanks for sharing this!

Once again the righteous anger of working people is domesticated by those who seek to control dissent. Yesterday it happened in South Africa. In a few weeks it may happen again in Washington. We repeat this mistake again and again like we have for centuries. We mistakenly think that we can cotnrol our dissent and offer our discontent to the masters in the form of a few leaders. Everytime our leaders get to the palace gate, the rulers bring them inside and then proceed to behead them. Those who aren't quite leaders yet meet to discuss the failure of their efforts and conclude that the masses need more "unity" and "discipline," so that the negotiations at the palace will go better next time.

The "unwashed masses" have the correct instinct: burn the palace down.

We need to put an end to parade marshalls and Trotskists wannabe leaders. This is the lesson that the Left should have learned since Seattle, but those wih designs on power refuse to see the need to change their ways.

Chuck0

Doug Henwood wrote:
> [and a counter to yesterday's commentary from Patrick Bond]
>
> From: "Patrick Bond" <pbond at sn.apc.org>
> To: <debate at sunsite.wits.ac.za>
>
> After the March on the Left
> by Franco Barchiesi . Saturday August 31, 2002 at 07:01 PM
> <f_barchiesi at yahoo.com>
>
> Critical comments on today's march
>
> AFTER THE MARCH ON THE LEFT
> Franco Barchiesi
>
> We at Indymedia South Africa had announced in a previous comment that
> today'
> s march on the WSSD would have been also a "march on the left". With that
> expression we meant that it was time for the new social movements to
> express
> the qualitatively new "biopolitical" nature of their struggle in terms of
> refusal not only of the identity and mystique of "national liberation", but
> also of the leadership practices of a left that has historically tended to
> reproduce subordination and discursive expropriation of the movements'
> grassroots subjectivity.
>
> There was a glimpse, a sudden and volatile moment in today's march when I
> thought we were close to our objective of "marching on the left". We were
> already in Sandton, and the Convention Centre was in sight. At a certain
> point I saw the Leaders of the movement quickly jump off the truck from
> where they had until then directed the operations and disciplined the
> demonstration. They ran on top of the march and at the same time Anna
> Weekes
> made me notice that there was a frantic run in the same direction by a
> group
> of young comrades. Shouts of "down with the marshals" were heard. Anna
> and I
> had the same thought: "Fuck! They want to break the cops' line".
>
> It was just a moment, then order and discipline were restored, but when the
> march was concluded by the Leaders' final speeches many of us retained the
> ominous thought that the Leaders' main concern at that point was that some
> could have funny ideas about breaking the "Red Zone". That can explain why
> many of their speeches replicated the very emptiness, rhetorical ritualism
> and mechanical repetitiveness that we have so often denounced as one of the
> most insidious disempowering devices that the Left has always used
> vis-à-vis
> its own grassroots. The best definition of the demonstration based on its
> conclusion was provided by an American comrade: "domesticated".
>
> The ritualism and conventionality of the Leaders' speeches (together with
> the banality of the slogans suggested from the bloody truck) is what has
> ultimately produced the political outcome of the demonstrations in terms
> that can unequivocally be defined as an appalling failure. And this time
> not
> even media coverage rescues us. Of course the political failure contrasted
> with the success of the march in terms of numerical turnout, which was
> indeed quite significant. But precisely in this contradiction between
> numerical success and political failure lies the biggest problem emphasised
> by the march. Numbers in demos like this can mean two rather different
> things. They can indicate a mass, made of distinct individual or group
> identities whose unity is artificially produced through the mediation of a
> specialised leadership that is the repository of a general ideological
> discourse as the lowest common denominator. Or it can indicate a multitude,
> where the distinctiveness of autonomous singularities is engaged in trying
> to identify a commonality of themes and aims from below, without this
> leading to a higher form of political synthesis that obliterates
> singularities themselves.
>
> The political outcome of today's demo goes towards the first of the two
> directions outlined here. And it is a very problematic outcome inasmuch it
> reiterates the self-construction and self-representation of the current
> movement's leadership as a separate political apparatus located in the
> control of organisational dynamics. This separation of the apparatus was
> particularly evident when the ANC tried its incredible provocation of
> sending Essop Pahad (one of the most sinister faces of the Mbeki regime,
> the
> former Stalinist chief eliminator of any form of dissent to the ANC during
> "the struggle") on the stage. I doubt that there was no one who wanted to
> jump on the stage at that time to kick that asshole down. Whatever the
> peoples' feelings might have been, however, it was Virginia Setshedi's kind
> invitation to "comrade Pahad" to step down that prevented more dramatic
> outcomes. And down he stepped, maintaining the affable and deriding smile
> that he has kept on his face for the whole duration of the appearance.
> Power
> always recognises itself, and it was precisely the self-recognition of
> Power
> on the two sides of the barricade, and the liturgical mediation thereof,
> that made such a humiliation of the movement possible.
>
> I have already mentioned the trite rhetoric in the leaders' speeches. True,
> that rhetoric has not prevented them to denounce the "Mbeki regime" and the
> "ANC government", themes that, however, for long have not been taboos at
> the
> grassroots. However, the forms in which that denunciation was made sounded
> terribly empty, and were usually played on Power's discursive field, in
> terms of Power's own contradictions ("remember why we have voted you", "go
> back to the Freedom Charter", and so on). In no ways those interventions
> were able to grasp the quite radical interrogation and critique of power
> that comes from the movements' own daily practices. These practices are
> based on forms of community self-management, construction of grassroots
> discourse, direct action in ways that are so rich, plural and
> diversified to
> be totally at odds with the hierarchical organisational practices of the
> traditional Left from which the Leaders come. And, in fact, it is not by
> chance that the APF represents de facto only a minority of urban social
> movements in South Africa today, mainly around Jo'burg (in spite of their
> boasting fictitious "affiliations" in Durban and Cape Town).
>
> What is completely missed at the leadership level is that the critique of
> Power that the new social movements in South Africa represent is radically
> different from what the post-colonial state form has experienced so far,
> where such a critique has usually been expressed as a rejection of the
> 'inter-class' or 'non-class' content of national liberation. What is going
> on here and now is rather a constituent process of grassroots
> subjectivities
> that question the very validity of unifying identities (be they called
> "class", "party", "union") as the form of expression of common desires.
> This
> is simply because these forms of representation and delegation, quite
> effective when the stake of conflict is State Power, simply no longer work
> when the stake becomes immediate reappropriation of life, which is as
> radical and subversive as the constraints imposed by the market and the
> commodity form are tight and is, especially, unavailable to mediate, to be
> channelled, represented, predictable.
>
> This is not just a matter of theorising. The current separation of the
> Leadership and its ghostly ideological discourse from the multifarious
> processes of subjectivity construction in today's movements in South Africa
> creates a void in the definition of the movements' discourse. And unless
> that is filled by interventions aimed at defining a commonality of themes
> around a prospect of anti-capitalist liberation, the void becomes a space
> where any sort of exclusivist, sectarian, reactionary closed identities
> flourish. An urgent problem from this point of view is, for example, the
> proliferation of Islamic fundamentalists at our marches, an issue that was
> already contentious last year in Durban and became quite visible today as
> well. While the entrenchment of such reactionary crap is a problem from the
> point of view of defining a multitude's commonality, it is not a problem
> for
> a leadership for which 3.000 islamists, independently from the contents
> they
> bring, are still valuable to swell numbers and add to the higher glory of
> the Leaders.
>
> Last year in Durban these problems were dealt with also in the form of a
> direct contestation of the Leaders of the Left (the silencing of Sangoco,
> the dreadful Trotskyite marshals sent with their butts on the ground). It
> was especially for this reason that many of use have thought of the Durban
> demo as a "constituent moment" for the movements' subjectivity. Today we
> have made a step back from that moment, maybe the problem is with big
> marches, which cannot replace a necessary daily work of, as we have written
> on our IMC T-shirts, "DISOBEDIENCE, DEFECTION, BETRAYAL".
>

-- 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)



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list