> Got to side with Chuck on this one, since I was down there for almost the
> whole week preceding the DC events. The IAC of course was doing their own
> thing, instead of working with the broad-based movement.
Thanks. The IAC was totally out of the loop, if I remember correctly. Lots of people went to that demo because, well, they were in town for A16 and not much was happening the night before A16.
But how the IAC organized for A16 weekend was a precursor to what they would do during later anti-globalization protests, always organizing competing events and rarely working with the coalitions. It's just that everybody ignored them before A16 because everybody was excited post-Seattle.
> Here's the irony-- because the IAC went off on their own with a rather small
> contingent (so much for their vaunted organizing ability when they can't
> sucker in other groups), they were rounded up for doing a pretty tame march.
As I've pointed out numerous times, the IAC's organizing ability is quite limited. It's just that lately they've been able to put themselves at the front of a groundswell of dissent and say that they organized it. It either that, or they outright lie like they have about September 2001.
> Compare that to the mass civil disobediance of the weekend, where most of
> the downtown roads were blockaged by the mass antiglobalization movement
> groups. Because of the solidarity involved, almost no arrests happened on
> the mass day of action (although some did on Monday when the numbers
> dwindled.)
It was fun and exciting. We had militant stuff, we had laid back stuff. The day rocked. The best protest of my life.
> This is the problem with the WWP/IAC. They promote tame protests, yet don't
> get the mass numbers because of their alienating rhetoric. It's the worst
> of all worlds as far as activism goes. Chuck and I might argue over the
> relative gains from smaller militant actions versus mass more mainstream
> appeals (although we'll agree that a mass militant action like A20 is at
> points the best of all worlds), but at least we both recognize the
> tradeoffs.
Nathan may disagree with me about this, but I would add that tame protests are alienating. There is a time and place for tame protests--like the rally on the Ellipse during A16--but people are more interested in militant protests than most organizers understand. The WWP/IAC never organize militant protests, because their agenda is served by rallies where they can put their speakers and mass marches which they can use to show their "support."
Some activists have argued that militant protests alienate people, yet anti-globalization protests since Seattle have been militant and more and more people turn out.
Again, to make my position clear: I'm not fetishizing miltant actions as THE course, rather an intelligent strategy that uses the full range of tactics.
> Since the WWP's goal is maximing its own power over the movement, not the
> influence on public policy, it's calculus on tradeoffs is very different.
> It likes tame marches because more militant actions require more
> decentralized, democratic control by multiple groups, and they also dislike
> mainstream ideological appeals to maximize numbers, because then they get
> marginalized in control of the speakers forum.
To put it in the crass terms of pronography--what the WWP seeks is the "money shot." They rely on photos of mass rallies and marches to prove that they have support. This is why they, like many other sectarian groups, place great emphasis on making sure that the brand identity of their sect appears in photos of the big rallies. You have all seen the incredibly boring, mass-produced anti-war signs that groups like the ISO bring to anti-war demos. One only has to look at these groups' newspapers to see why this is so important to make sure that the "money shot" is organized and orchestrated carefully.
As some of you veteran activists have seen, this gets quite comical at times.
The anti-war march on January 18th, which had been organized by ANSWER and other groups, ended up in this heterogenous mass parade of home-made signs and people just marching together. I was standing at the Navy Yard with friends--which was near the end of the march--and here comes the ISO contingent, which had managed to stay together despite the stir fry flavor of the march.
All hail the cadre that marches together despite such odds!
Or take an incident several years ago, when the local IAC organizer approached one of my activist friends at some rally at Lafayette Park. The rally did not include the usual mix of local activists, but it was one dominated by people of color (for some cause that I forget). The IAC organizer asked my friend to take a sign with the IAC name on it into the middle of the crowd, so the IAC organizer could take a picture, thus implying that the IAC had organized the event, or had been a player. To his credit, my friend refused to participate in this stunt.
My favorite "money shot" tactic is when some sect organizes the "charging youth photo op." This is when a group of young people at a march are organized in a group behind a banner. A space is cleared out in front of them and then they are told to start running forward. The resulting photo, of course, is designed to promote the idea that radical youth are leading the vanguard to the revolution.
I've always wondered if anybody has ever told the folks that arrange this buffoonery if they understand the ageism of this spectacle.
> So it is based on their self-interested organizational needs that they
> promote tame marches with marginalizing rhetoric. It's stupid from
> political influence goals, but makes sense from WWP's own self-interested
> goals.
Exactly.
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/
"The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free..." ---Utah Phillips