Anarchists everywhere are complaining about and condemning the wanky liberalness of the Occupy movement. i find this attitude both legitimate and troubling. below is a comment from a comrade in denver that i think is pretty on point, followed by a few more of my own thoughts.
"I think that those of us who have been politically involved for a long time tend to be very skeptical of emerging movements without a clearly defined ideology, and rightly so since most of them end up being nothing more than places for collective jerking off. But this cynicism can sometimes also blind us (at least initially) to events and actions that manage to capture the popular imagination in a way that cannot be predicted, or controlled. Some of the most exciting actions during the Greek uprising were roundly condemned as being naive or not radical enough yet they evolved into astounding general assemblies with blue and white collar workers, retirees, housewives, immigrants, and anarchists. The anarchist groups often initiated the occupation of municipal buildings and opened the space for everyone to join, ensuring that all voices would be heard. The statements and actions that emerged out of those occupations were not the most cutting edge ones ideologically, except of course that they were statements and actions which emerged out of authentic popular assemblies and addressed real and legitimate concerns, not just sloganeering."
"But the main point of my post is to make sure that our legitimate cynicism doesn't blind us to real potential. Difficult to do, I'll admit, but important to keep in mind. We need to be cautious with where things start but pay at least as much attention with where things can go. Can we identify good people and work with them where they are at, instead of outrightly dismiss them because they are not already where we are at? How do we balance caution and optimism?"
thought 1: every three years it seems like a new generation of activists has to learn how to protest. those of us who protested before have been beat into a form of relative submission by police violence and infiltration, and we lack the infrastructure to pass along the knowledge we acquired from our own experiences and mistakes. this is a big weakness, and one that needs to be addressed if our movements and communities are to pose any viable alternatives/challenges to anything. really, i think we should be kinda thrilled that people from outside our anarchist clique are taking the streets behind language as militant as Occupy _____, even if their actions aren't quite living up to their posturing yet. if this isn't a potential opportunity for mass radicalization, i don't know what is. I think there should be a lot more skillshares going on around strategic action planning, street tactics and safety, and the recent history of protest movements. if not, these folks will just learn the same as we did, and three years later, a new generation will repeat the cycle again.
thought 2: the ISO and their ilk are fairly adept and hijacking coalitions and things. it's partly cause they are authoritarian and vanguardist. i don't propose that we become the ISO, but i think there is plenty of space to join wank liberal coalitions, throw our weight around a bit, and steer it in more liberatory and radical directions. this isn't about some specific community having a meeting where we want to tread carefully and not step on toes. this is about a general assembly for the heart of an amorphous and abstract movement of sorts. there's nothing wrong with exaggerating our voice and perspective and using our wealth of experience and organizing savvy to push a direction we can get behind while not alienating everyone who doesn't wear crust punk uniforms or speak "consensus" fluently. that said, if we are going to hijack a coalition or GA, we ought to do it right. get your ducks in a row. make a plan with people. roll deep. and go for the win.
thought 3: in any united front, no-platform entity, we need to be very weary of infiltration and cooptation by the right. part of me thinks its worth being involved just to avoid that. the nativist/anti-immigrant wing of the libertarian right tried to do this with the anti-war movement, with slogans like "bring the troops home and put them on the border" and "guard the rio grande, not the euphrates." luckily, the anti-war movement was far down the road of irrelevancy before that happened. but if the Right takes hold of this movement while it is rising, it could be dangerous. there are already plenty of nationalistic undertones to it, and it has gotten considerable attention from the libertarian-conspiracy crowds. we don't want to be in coalition with them, but we don't want to let them have it either.
thought 4: we might fail. we might invest considerable amounts of time and energy into this phenomena, only to see it fizzle anyway. maybe it will stay wanky and boring. maybe the fad will pass when the next season of America's Top Stupid Distraction starts. either of those things could happen with or without our participation. but if it doesn't fizzle, if it erupts, and we are relegated to the sidelines, that will be a much bigger failure. ultimately, do we want to be agents or spectators of history?