-Caveat Lector-
First of all, it is important to emphasize that we are
not discussing strategy, only tactics.
I think most anarchists hate the corporate rule and
its devastating consequences just as much as I do.
Otherwise I wouldn't find discussion worthwhile.
My provocative post was intended for
- getting over once for all with the long standing
discussion violence/not violence, and also for
- suggesting a logic way of refining our tactics.
Doing it in this open manner at the same time should
educate our audience about our working conditions, so
they understand and accept why we sometimes have to turn
a little bit up for the violence in order to get through
to them:
The mass media obviously are alpha and omega for
fullfilling our mission.
The main object of the 99 % mass media monopoly of the
capital power therefore is to prevent us from
unveiling the mechanisms and incredibly destructive
nature and consequences of capitalism, and in particular
from disclosing that there is an alternative.
But the individual media, however, also have to
sell all kinds of sensations in order to survive.
And that is our only chance.
The typical sensation-parameters with regard to
demonstrations are number of participants and degree
of violence.
But big size in itself is no guarantee. Lots of
demonstrations even bigger than that in Seattle pass more
or less unnoticed by the media.
Violence is the safest media magnet.
Maximum sympathy we gain of course when the violence
is not initiated by us.
For several reasons there was very much focus on Seattle
beforehand. And the brutality of the police made the
scene perfect for maximum worldwide sympathy for our
cause.
Therefore the subsequent smashing of windows, etc., was
counterproductive.
Hooliganism is violence with no precise and easily
understandable purpose and target.
As alternative to peaceful demonstration, the organizers
could have chosen to arm all of us, so that we could
have overpowered the police and taken all of the WTO
delegates hostages until they had given up their vicious
undertakings.
That would also have made sense and given us lots of
credits.
For very good reasons the organizers refrained from this
option.
All of this should be obvious.
So my only original contribution is the suggestion that
the organizers in the future arrange for contacts for
worldwide continual reporting on the local media coverage
during the demonstration, so that we all the time can
turn up or down for the violence in accordance with the
average coverage.
By the way, has anybody expressed our deep gratitude for
the great job the organizers, anarchists and others,
did for accomplishing this historic event which has the
potential of becoming a turning point ?
I think we should !
Ole Fjord Larsen,
member of United Peoples
http://www.unitedpeoples.net
P.S. Flexibility also seems to be what gave the Mau-Mau freedomfighters in Kenya
the victory, cf. the following
post:
Subject:
Re: FUTURE PLANNING AFTER SEATTLE
Date:
Sun, 12 Dec 1999 18:32:47 EST
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I pretty much agree with your position on "hooliganism", although I prefer a
strictly non-"violent" approach.
Given that there is always likely to be some fringe hooliganism, genuine or
by provacateurs, it is useful to remember the old technique known as "Mau Mau
and Moderate", or "extremist" and moderate". (Mau Maus were the Kenyan
"terrorists" in their struggle for independence under Jomo Kenyatta.)
When the "extremist" goes "too far", it enables the "moderate" to use that
"extremism" as leverage to move the "center", or status quo, in the desired
direction. The idea is that "you need to deal with us moderate types or else
the extremists will get out of hand".
Ideally, Mau Maus and Moderates work in tandem, consciously, and coordinate
their efforts without trying to trash each other. Thus, in a local campaign,
someone(s) in the local movement may play the Mau Mau role in order to set up
receptivity for those colleagues who are playing the "reasonable
professional" role and who are proposing reasonable solutions to the
"problem" now posed by the Mau Maus.
In ordinary circumstances, these roles are played by somewhat antagonistic
groups or individuals who don't seem to be aware that they need each other.
Extremists need the moderates [I define "moderates" in terms of techniques
and perceptions, not particularly in terms of goals] -- as it is only the
"reasonable" moderates who can get enough acceptance to be able to translate
movement goals into actual policies. And the moderates need the extremists
in order to move the terms of debate to "the left" (or however you might
describe the desired direction).
Of course, this doesn't apply to armed revolutions, etc. I'm just talking
about "civic" movement organizing.
So, one task for future planning is to make use of the threat of the
"hooligans" to increase the credibility of the "responsible" dissidents, and
to increase the scope and range of the demonstrations while the police
concentrate on the "threat" from the fringe elements, leaving the main body
undisturbed and with greater freedom to act in a creative non-violent way.
Maybe we can achieve a peaceful grid-lock and shutdown? And get to some
different kind of demand/negotiating position?
Peace,
Bill Peltz
Subject:
Re: FUTURE PLANNING AFTER SEATTLE
Date:
Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:40:31 EST
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:
"PGA Action at WTO Seattle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGA Action at WTO Seattle - http://members.aol.com/pgacaravan
Although I share Ole Fjord Larsen's assessment that the window
breaking/graffitti spraying in Seattle was counterproductive and
undesireable(although you'd be surprised at the number of middle class, older
people who have privately expressed sympathy toward it!), I am no less than
horrified at his suggestion that:
"The coordinating group of the participating organisations
must to an even higher degree than this time prepare the
demonstrators for knocking down and turning over to the
police any anwanted hooligans.
Even if a hooligan should be killed, it would only be a very
little loss as compared with the daily rate of 20.000
dead children due to corporate rule"
I can think of nothing more destructive to our movement than for us to become
police agents, or to dehumanize participants we disagree with as "hooligans"
and turn on them violently. Remember the old saying "The Revolution eats its
young?" Let's not do it!
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
