> What the hell are you talking about Chuck?
I'm talking about the fact that a mass organization did not plan Seattle. Seattle was the culmination of work done by many groups, organizations, movements, networks, and individuals. It was not led by some big mass organization that leftists are always telling us that we must create before we can do anything.
> You may not agree with how the
> unions acted at Seatlle but they were there. And if you think a handful of
> Black Bloc folks breaking windows by themselves would have been news, you
> are deluding yourself. It was "Teamsters and Turtles Together" that made
> the headlines, the two different forces getting credibility from each other
> through the synergy of their presence.
That is a simplistic understanding of the forces at work in Seattle. I've never argued that *only* the black bloc accomplsihed something at Seattle, nor would I ever argue that a tactic that is only used at mass protests should be the primary vehicle of radical social change. I've long argued that it was the snergy of many forces that made Seattle what it was. Saying that it was just the result of "Teamsters and Turtles" tell only half the story. I didn't like the tameness of the labor march, but the presence of big labor brought lots of media to town which was important to making Seattle a big story. The Turtles and the direct actionists (which included a bunch of anarchists) brought the strategy which set up the confrontation with the police (you'll never see ANSWER organizing anything along the lines of what DAN organized in Seattle, hence the irrelevance of ANSWER). The NGOs provided much of the intellecutal and issues framing around the protests. And the black bloc "did the right thing" by going on that shopping spree. Without the black bloc's actions, the rest of the protests wouldn't have gotten more attention than a one minute blurb on national news. But without the other elements such as labor, the street civil disobedience, and the NGOs, the black bloc would have been dismissed as an odd riot.
All of these elements were important to making Seattle significant, but there was another important element: the police. Without the beautiful failure of the Seattle police department the impact of Seattle would have been far less. The police played into our hands in what I see as an exmample of the protest "perfect storm." Just look at how much money police departments have spent on equipment and training in order to avoid repeating the wonderful meltdown of the Seattle police department.
Let me point out again that anarchists were involved in all aspects of Seattle, ranging from NGOs to the labor march.
> I fully agree with the point about continuing to dissent, but your sense of
> tactics just seems bizarre. You think that power can be fought without
> countervailing power, that somehow media circuses will make the wall fall
> all by itself. Mass organization by itself gets you nothing more than a
> crowd, but mass organization combined with action gets you mass strikes,
> consumer boycotts, largescale civil disobediance that fills jails beyond
> capacity-- real challenges to the state that are the manifestations of
> power.
That's what everybody claims, but where is this mass organization?
I think that power can be fought with another form of power. Some pundits have brought up the idea of the "second superpower." Or there is talk about "the multitude" or, my favorite, the "movement of movements."
There is much power in the grassroots. I just think that it is a mistake to organize that power into big organizations which become vanguards and juicy targets for the state. I much prefer to cultivate the decentralized network power of the grassroots, which the Internet has helped to show is possible.
> One reason Bush is in deep shit in Iraq now is he is no longer dealing with
> isolated rearguard Baathists but someone like Sadr who not only had guns but
> a broader mass movement behind him. Whatever you think of Sadr's politics,
> he and his forces are exercising power and thus Bush has to deal with them.
> He is using violence but the reason the violence is meaningful politically
> is that it is backed by mass organization.
Now you are talking apples and I was talking about oranges. Bush is in deep shit in Iraq for many reasons. But the important question is: has the left, or anarchists, or the peace movement played a role in any of these reasons? Not really. The anti-war movement went into remission after the war started. Why is that? If anybody on the left has done anything effective against the war it's probably the left media. We've been keeping the fire to the feet of the Bush administration.
> I sure as hell am against violence by mass forces in the US, but we
> definitely need to build power and that requires real organizing. You
> disdain the ballot box, so you punt on that form of power. But you don't
> even assert the anarchist syndicalism of mass strike unionism to force
> change.
I don't rule out the methods that the anarcho-syndicalists advocate, but they are more agnostic about these big mass organizations that the left argues we need to build before we can do anything.
And "real organizing" can take other forms outside the building of mass organizations. I'm all for organizing, but my methods and strategies are different than what most leftists advocate.
> You talk about action but you never give an analysis of why the action you
> advocate will force those with power to make concessions. Sure, ANSWER
> sucks even more-- marching into pens makes little sense if you alienate any
> potential sympathizers with stupid rhetoric; it's the worst of all worlds.
Why did Seattle work? You and I have outlined some of the reasons. There are now many books that provide useful analysis of the anti-globalization movement. I think we should also look at history to explore what those in power fear. Who are they worried about? Who are they repressing?
Why were the police in Seattle so incompetent? I argue that they didn't prepare because they, like many police departments, didn't take activists and protests seriously. If the activists call you up on the phone and get a protest permit and then spend the day making speeches, why should the police change their tactics after many years of nothing changing?
> But the electoral activists you despise at least have an articulated plan,
> seize the state at the ballot box. What's your plan? How do you challenge
> existing power? What will you propose that will make them stop what they
> are doing, rather than just up the repression as needed?
Right, I disagree with people who seek to make change via the ballot box. The simple answer to your question? My plan is anarchism. The more complicated version? Support what my comrades are doing, be it in the form of outreach, education, networking, and organization. Support the growth of the alternative press. Work on getting radical ideas and analysis out to the general public. Build counterinstitutions to help provide us with the base infrastructure to do bigger things. Participate in grassroots struggles, such as housing, gentrification, and media reform. Put together long term plans to confront those in power. Win the "battle of the story." Normalize anarchists and anarchist ideas. Build relationships with allies and friends in other tendencies. Publish, create and educate. Have fun. Practice what you preach. Don't work to hard. Support those who take risks.
Listen to Chumbawamba after playing anarchist soccer while riding around Kansas City with comrades as we look for a new space for our infoshop and radical bookstore. Write articles for Indymedia and the alternative press. Promote what other radicals are doing. Monkeywrench authority. Drink beers with the anarchist and radical librarians after protesting Colin Powell. Work with the local liberal media reform activists.
So all of us are tired of ANSWER rallies and we disagree about voting. What are some other options?
Chuck0