But I'd rather not engage in a personal attack, which is hard for me because I don't know anything about you. You claim to know something about my tenure as an activist in D.C. I don't see how this is relevant, given that I was trying to participate in a discussion about the contemporary anti-war movement.
Responses below.
Jim Straub wrote:
> Chuck, how about the last 'shutdown' you worked on, the dc 'general strike',
> which had miniscule participation, and virtually no support from the
> residents of dc who are not anti-globalization activists. Despite your
> claims of insurrection pending, it didn't 'shut down' anything more than the
> parking lot of a panera.
Your take on the People's Strike reads like it came out of the WWP playbook of political smears. In fact, the People's Strike was a successful shutdown of downtown Washington, DC. What's more, it had an impact way beyond the goals of that particular action. It also showed what a small group of people are capable of organizing, all the more remarkable given that 9/11 had disrupted our plans the year before.
Before you trash the work we did on the People's Strike, I'd like to hear how one of your groups dealt with the disruption of a major campaign by a major event in American history. I can relate that the year after 9/11 was a tremendously challenging and difficult one for me and other organizers. It's not easy to pick up the pieces after 9/11 ruined "Seattle 2" for us. It's not easy to continue organizing after spending six months doing organizing non-stop, all the while being an unemployed person with an uncertain future. It's not easy trying to organize a movement that has suddenly clammed up in fear. But I stuck it out. I helped initiate the anti-WEF protests in New York City and I stuck with the Anti-Capitalist Convergence despite some difficult organizational issues.
The "People's Strike" shut down the downtown area of D.C., along with several Metro stations. The police actually helped us "shut down" the downtown with their overblown hysteria campaign in the weeks before the protest. If they had been a smarter bunch of police, they should have said nothing about the protest and then arrested those of us who participated.
I had worked in that area of downtown D.C. for five years prior to the September 2002 protest, so I had a good feel for the level of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on the streets on a weekday morning. I was impressed that the streets were nearly deserted on the morning of the People's Strike. The streets had the traffic level of a quiet Saturday morning. It was reported later that many workers came to work later in the morning, but the threat of the Strike DID disrupt downtown that morning.
The participation in the Strike could have been much larger and probably would have been larger if 9/11 hadn't happened the previous year. The Strike was successful in that it effectively deployed a multi-pronged of disruption. Early in the morning, intersections around town were disrupted by affinity groups. Smaller teams conducted actions such as gluing the locks shut at Metro stations before they opened. Others rendesvoused for the snake march, which would have had a more noticeable effect if the streets had been full of cars. There was the Critical Mass and other separate mini-marches and actions.
Could there have been more participation by Washington residents? Of course. That was a criticism many of us had about the theme of the action, which was modeled on a general strike. Some of us felt that we could have done a better job of organizing with more community and labor groups. The ACC had been doing some kick-ass community organizing in 2001, but the strain of the post-9/11 situation really disrupted our communuty efforts. Still, the People's Strike was supported by average Washingtonians, at least from what we heard through the limited feedback.
Even though the streets were deserted and the police were pretty much in control of things, the police then engaged in a series of tactical blunders that were breathtaking in their stupidity. Their decision to arrest over 400 activists when the protests were basically winding down would have ramifications on the police department to this day. The idiotic police decision, spearheaded by Chief Bozo, Charles Ramsey, meant that the police would be dragged throught the courts for years. The courts even reprimanded the police department and instituted new restrictions on the police which has probably created a more favorable atmosphere for dissent in D.C. today.
See, like I've been saying, if you don't venture anything, you won't gain anything.
The success of the People's Strike was also amazing given the fact that the organization that organized it had very little resources. We probably spent only a few thousand dollars on the logistics of the protest. It really helped us that we had a core group of experienced organizers to draw on.
The People's Strike was also important in that the anti-capitalist movement mounted a protest involving direct action, civil disobedience, sabotage and standard street tactics at a time when people were still telling us that the political climate was hostile to radical protests. Contrary to the concern being peddled on this list about the Patriot Act and so on, none of us invovled with the People's Strike faced any serious legal trouble.
> With a track record like that, I would be concerned about my credibility as
> a militant. You on the other hand, randomly advocate a form of shutdown
> that, in attempting to corner a vital munitions plant in the middle of
> hostile territory, would be universally hated by the public, and in the
> unlikely event it was able to attract enough activists to even slow down a
> single supply delivery for half an hour would be crushed by armed forces of
> the state with actual, literal, violence. How conversant are you with
> firearms, chuck? Because if you ever attempted to do some of the things you
> regularly call on others to do, the police and/or marines would shoot at you
> and any families or friends unlucky enough to be near you, and I suspect you
> probably wouldn't be much able to shoot back.
That's your take on the scenario. An extremely conservative take, but I think an overly cautious one. I think my example is a workable strategy, but I used this scenario as an illustration of the types of strategy that the anti-war movement should by considering and trying. I'm not wedded to this particular scenario.
> But instead of pausing before you hit the send button on such exhortations,
> you instead accuse those militants with a more sane attitude towards
> struggle and conflict who point out what the state would do to you, of being
> pro-war.
Which militants? On this list?
> One's mid-forties are awful late to start growing up, but you ought to make
> a go of it, man. You're tolerated by fewer and fewer in even your own
> milleu every year, and have resigned from this list twice in the past few
> months in outrage against being spoken to reasonably by comrades, only to
> come slinking back later, briefly polite and reasonable, only to later on
> lapse back into immaturity and call joanna a christopher hitchens because
> she (factually and correctly) pointed out that the dangerous action you just
> demanded others do would in fact end with your spending a lifetime in jail
> at best.
In case you haven't been reading the news, several alleged members of the Earth Liberation Front were sentenced to several years, not decades, in prison for doing stuff far worse than sitting down in front of a factory.
Since when does one's choice of tactics have anything to do with one's age or maturity level? Are you saying that the Black Panthers were a bunch of immature adults? Or all of the liberation movements around the world?
I'm tolerated by fewer and fewer in my mileu? What's that supposed to mean? Have you taken some kind of poll of the movement or my peers? This is just ridiculous character assasination.
People join and leave this list all the time. What difference does it make? I left this list earlier this summer in order to cut down on my email so I could focus on personal projects. I've been away from the computer alot during this summer, so I had to cut back on several high traffic lists. I did leave this list last month briefly as a protest against the personal attacks being tolerated here, not just against myself, but against other people. But if Doug has decided that personal atatcks are OK, I can stick around and defend myself.
> Joanna has all the credibility and integrity as a militant and revolutionary
> in the world. How many would say the same of you, Chuck? Are there any, at
> all, left, anywhere? You're turning into kevin keatin, man.
Plenty of people would say that I have credibility and integrity. I have
quite a few comrades out there who respect what I say and what I do. Since I have those comrades, I know that my words here pretty much reflect what my friends are thinking. If anything, some of them think I'm a bit too liberal in my politics.
Am I supposed to be insulted by this remark about my good friend Kevin Keating?
Chuck