[lbo-talk] Lockdown NYC

Bill Bartlett billbartlett at dodo.com.au
Fri Apr 23 18:49:40 PDT 2004


At 5:38 PM -0500 23/4/04, Chuck0 wrote:
>Nathan Newman wrote:
>
>>But your need for secrecy mitigates against large numbers, unless the
>>movement is completely undemocratic.
>>
>>I like the basic Gandhi approach-- pick strategies that mass numbers can
>>participate in and that will mess with the authorities even if they know
>>exactly what you plan to do.
>
>Gandhi is overrated and was a unique example in a historical context
>that has been oversimplified by nonviolent activists who don't want
>to understand the big picture of the Indian fight for independence.
>
>Given the police state that is set up in New York City, we have to
>resort to some level of secrecy in order to implement direct action.
>Otherwise people will be herded into pens where our dissent will
>effectively be dissipated!

An oversimplification based on a lack of comprehension that there is a difference between direct action and public demonstration. It also indicates a complete misunderstanding of the difference between strategy and tactics.


>Secrecy has always been an important component of direct action that
>confronts a repressive state.

Public demonstrations are not "direct action".


>You don't expect us to mail our membership lists to the police, do you?

There is no need to go to the trouble. But it would be sensible to assume they already have the lists and adopt a strategy which takes this into account. Only trouble is, you don't even know the meaning of 'strategy".


> It's bad enough that activists stupidly help the police by applying
>for protest permits. The main reason for secrecy in this case is to
>maintain the element of surprise so we can implement our strategy!

You mean implement your tactics. What you do at the public demonstration is at the tactical level. You don't have any conscious strategy, except secrecy which (even if you knew it was strategic) is the wrong strategy.


>And your comment about hoping that the Teamsters beat up my friends
>is truly despicable. Blaming protesters for Bush getting elected is
>about as ignorant as blaming Nader for Bush getting elected.

If you are undermining the strategy of the main body of protestors, it makes sense for them to try to stop you. However if their strategy is non-violence, then beating you up would obviously be a lousy tactic, since it also undermines their strategy. They need to have some plan to counter provocateurs though. Whether those provocateurs are paid agents of the state, or wild-eyed grand-standers.


>Thanks for confirming for me why radicals can't work with liberals
>on the streets. If you don't beat us up, you are out there urging
>the cops to beat us up!

Getting the cops to beat you up wouldn't work, the trouble is with this is that it would probably come across publicly that you deserve it. The strategic object of non-violent dissent is to make it more difficult for the cops to take advantage of their overwhelming superiority of force. What the organisers need to do is try to non-violently defend you from the cops, while also non-violently preventing you (not to mention the usual paid agent provocateurs, which you seem intent on making redundant) from rampaging about the place giving the cops an excuse to beat you (and other protestors) up.

Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list