There are currently several things about the current "anti-globalisation"
movement that need debate.
Roughly speaking, some of the main points continue to be: what to make of the
movement in general? Is there a precedent for it?
What of "mainstream" anarchists? The Labour marches? Attempts to bring them
together? What of the NGO's? What about the Black Bloc? Is there a place for
social democracy?
What attacks are appropriate now? Should levels of militancy be curtailed?
What is the strategy, or is there one?
These are all questions that are currently being asked. My feeling is that there
are some general observations that need to be made so as to reduce the levels of
confusion before anything gets said on any of these topics in a blanket way.
1. WHAT IS GOING ON?
First off, the main dividing lines between this current upsurge in activity and
previous ones are the motivating factors and the vastness of the area covered by
the participants. While it is very much to the usual pattern of things that the
demonstrators do not have a full understanding of the connection they have with
Third World struggles or internationalism as a totality, this is an
International movement. One can't breach that movement and focus on the narrow
one-issue at a time politics of the Union leadership current would like it- nor
can NGO's be given the lead role in calling and organising demonstrations. The
one-at-a-time politcal thinking has been surpassed, for better or worse, by some
cross Oceanic consciousness on the part of the main contingent of the
demonstrations organising committees. If that were to change now, it could only
seriously harm the cohesion of the rising movement.
That cross-border identification is the political thinking of all that are in
the main actions that attempt to disrupt the meetings- whether it be through
peacefully blockading streets as in Seattle, or in attacking and breaching the
police barricades of our cities as in Prague, Quebec City and now Genoa. These
participants have gone to great lengths to make it clear that nowhere is there a
place that a meeting can be held where people will not meet these murderers and
try to cancel their meeting. This is the nature of the movement and why it seems
to be almost explosive in appearance.
TINA was (and is) widely felt around the entire world after the USSR
disappeared. The movement, by it's simple defiance in the face of the policies
of TINA, is allowing the realisation across the planet of what many always knew:
That history does not end and there is indeed a point to struggle today. Beyond
that, people have also come to a sense of urgency- and considering the state of
our environment, the bubble economy and the facile pats on the head that come
from the media, is their any purpose in telling them not to be anxious? We need
to promote precisely this kind of anxiety. Doing so is not to neglect the ideas
of better organising- it is to celebrate that we now have a new chapter before
us- and it is not one that is basing itself on compromise.
The leadership of these different countries, from the insulated walls of their
meetings (which have been poisoned by the drifting, wafting air of their own
tear gas), have now begun to "address" the issues on the minds of the
demonstrators. In Quebec, they issued a declaration on "democracy" (Essentially
codifying the expulsion/banning of socialist Cuba in puffy language). In Genoa,
they seek to alleviate imperialism itself- promising to "work towards an end to
global poverty". Their corporate media and masters point out that the more
militant demonstrators are mostly poor or comfortable white youth from the West
of Europe and North America- while conveniently forgetting to mention that their
own leadership heads are mostly rich old white men who inherited their fortunes.
TINA cracked in Seattle; TINA is almost a joke now. This is what the greatest
gift has been from demonstrator to the rest of what calls itself left: The
abolition of notions of relegating themselves to capitalism through begging
proceedures and the eradication (not completed, but nearer than thought possible
less than two years ago) of the "End of History". I wonder who wants to invite
Frances Fukuyama to speak at a conference these days. Not one-tenth as many, we
can be self-assured. Third World revolutionaries could not, of course, ever have
believed his lies about the End of History. However, too many from the North had
believed precisely that for far too long.
THE RISING OF OFFICIAL LABOUR & THE MODERN ANARCHISTS (AND THE NGO'S)
We are also watching a parallel rise of union militancy. This has been generated
despite the natural opposition of labour bureaucrats. The marchers in Seattle
were set to come downtown and join the peaceful Anarchist blockades that shut
down the meeting of the WTO. At the last moment- and with many hours to go
before the Black Bloc emergence, let their be no mistake about this- Union
leaders sent marshals to the intersections a pair of blocks away from the
demonstration that was being ruthlessly attacked by the police. From the vantage
point of being someone who had intended to go through both marches, I can attest
that by 1:00pm the most constant refrain- over and over- was "when are the
unions going to get here?" We kept trying to tell the time, guess how long it
would be. For myself and many others in that crowd, hopelessly na�ve about Trade
Union Bureaucrats- we never stopped expecting their appearance at a later point.
In retrospect, it is a simple class analysis that our na�vete was lacking. TUB's
are not part of the working class in the same way as many of their fellow
travellers deem. They have positions underneath them that are wholly rocky,
should the workers take independent action. As even Max Weber - bourgeois
sociologist- points out in his description of the bureaucrat- part of the value
goes beyond money- the rewards of social esteem are had by all. They protect
this in a day-to-day manner by maintaining their contacts with the officials in
Social Democratic parties throughout Europe and Canada, the Democratic Party of
the Vietnam war in the United States. To allow their masses of working people to
assemble and go to the "front" as it were- that would be to destroy their own
careers. This is unrealistic for any of us to ever imagine.
Yet, on many levels- particularly from our current weakness- it is absolutely
essential to win the help of big labour. So what do we do? Ask the most militant
to fold their tent and absorb into the Union movement? What has some seething
among my circles as a Marxist- is the concepts of Anarchism. Or to put it more
bluntly into the language of the frail human condition- many Marxists of today
are fighting ghost battles of yesterday- and appear to be troubled that
"Anarchism" has taken a leading role in modern day radicalism, while our
indispensable tradition has nearly no sway. The point is not, however- to
"expose" anarchism to socialists. Comrades of the Red tradition have long known
many of the pitfalls of Anarchism -if they are indeed Communists, part of why is
this understanding in their minds. What communists need to do is not at all a
break from Marxist thinking at all. What approach is needed is to not be
ruthlessly critical of the anarchists who have produced an embryonic mass
movement. What needs to be assessed is just how brutally our own practice has
isolated us and our Marxism- in the new movements, the labour struggles of the
last three decades, the world events and the lack of willingness to ever go
through these processes on our part. Traditional economism is the course being
steered, for the most part, by TUBs throughout the First World. They are also
asking for reformist demands.
NGO's can continue to use the movement to help their individual causes, since
they provide new blood and people who ent for one cause temd to see the links
for all. However, the typical demands, the one by one bunch of the NGO's- cannot
become a major part of the overall movement in a leading way. For them to do
this would require dumping all the other NGO's, essentially, never mind the
revolutionary components that are already involved in organising opposition to
the whole system as represented by these institutions. When the "turtles" are
involved, it is because trade laws and regulations prohibit the passing of new
laws to protect endangered giant tortoises and overrule the existing ones. How
on earth would a campaign against Third World Debt capture it? It would be the
end of much of the environmental- both radical components and the mainstream
corporate-acceptable such as the World Wildlife Fund. The position of NGO's as
an appendage and educational forum within the movement is not necessarily as
reactionary as many of them are in their politics when they stand alone. They
will remain secondary and not decisive but useful on the education front.
Paradoxically, the demands of certain NGO's and their supporters to "drop the
debt" (like Farm Aid hero, singer Bob Geldof and Bono: admirer of all fights for
liberty but the Irish who were both seething at "anarchists" and "violence" even
before the media killed comrade Carlo Guiliani) is far more a radical and
impossible demand than anything raised in attempts to abolish the WTO, FTAA,
NAFTA, the G8, the EU. The debt cycle is how the Imperialist countries continue
to keep the subservience of the Third World economically- it is the mainstay of
Imperialist subjugation of the national struggle generally- it is the expression
of what NATO wants to do the to the recently re-conquered remnants of socialism
in Yugoslavia. The cycle of debt IS Imperialism at it's essence. Ultimately this
demand is a touching belief system held by the Bonos, the Geldofs, the TUB's and
the social democrats- all of whom use a system of analysis which denies the very
existence of Imperialism and fights for simpleminded peace without justice- in
Northern Ireland, Israel and the streets of Genoa.
A demand to abolish the WTO, etc. is actually more feasible- but this is not to
say it is feasible. It is a series of well-coded "acronyms of death" which
represent the attempts of a fragmenting coalition of capitalists that had united
in the face of the USSR to remain united in the face of the new, raw competition
of the era of US Imperialist globalization. The "alphabet soup" of oppressions
is the bourgeoisies' attempt to prove Karl Kautsky right and Lenin wrong: the
development of some "ultra-imperialism". At the same time, the arguments by
Kautsky against the original Bolshevik revolution are also very much at work
among the so-called Marxists, who are pleading for the restrainment of the will
on the part of the movement. TUB's fearing the merge of union struggle with
militant actions both in oppostion to capitalism and in favour of the right to
protest and make grievances heard will block at many levels. This is to be
expected. It is not, however, permissible on the part of the revolutionarily
minded to defend the right of the state to repress the movement -- on even the
sideways level - by calling these actions, the galvanising force for the
introduction of a new movement "inappropriate". Such was the language of the
Communist Party of France in 1968- for those who want precedents. It was an
out-an-out betrayal then, and it is fool hardy and a guarantee of the safe
encirclement of irrelevancy that anyone would do so now.
The problem is the location and colour of the Trade Union marches- not the
solution to the Anarchists and their more wild-card appearance and participants.
The solution is for the concerned activists inside unions to agitate their
membership to participate in the movement directly- whether that is through
resources, organising, or the ultimate short-term goal- that the demostrations
of thousands of unorganised workers be swamped with the power of workers en
masse. At this point the marches will have a character and body to them that
would absolutely terrify the powers that be. The working class standing up for
it's own. The demonstrators are working class, too -after all.
That organised labour is "doing something" is appropriate and exciting- but very
predictable. Not just because the anarchists pull them left by being a topic of
discussion, but also because of late capitalism itself. A TUB is nothing without
some power under him (or her) in the form of a Trade Union, obviously. The
current corporate globalisation agenda is one that threatens to destroy the
unions that currently exist. So long as these realities compound- and
imperialism is still here so compound they will- the TUB's will continue to
oppose the existence of "globalisation" and will hark to the New Deal politics
of Ralph Nader.
No one need fear that labour leaders will return to the barracks; if labour were
to stop marching and attempting to gloss over the conditions of society along
the lines of Sweeney (and even Hoffa and Buchanan!) they would also cease to be.
There is no need to bite our tongues when they sell-out- their participation in
also setting up counter demos several miles away from where the government
attacks the people who oppose them from acting in peace- this will not change
and will be here for a long time. It is in the parasitic nature of TUB's to do
just this: Let others create a movement and set of demands while they walk into
a square covered in blood and demand a negotiation. Solidarity wouldn't enter
these people's heads except as a leverage tactic.
So what of the people who are showing up in the thousands to attempt to force
the shut down of these meetings? Their strategy has been one of resistance. They
demonstrate, correctly, that it is right to rebel. In this rebellion, they also
have seen the everyday people reflecting at them without condemnation. There are
not a large number of people- anywhere in Canada- who opposed the tearing down
of the Wall that represented precisely where our place is in the future as it is
laid out by these folks who murder without thinking at all. Our shame is not
that we are tearing down these Walls- but that those who do so didn't do so in
true internationalist fashion to stop the continuing genocide of Iraq, the
military conquest of our brothers and sisters Yugoslav, or the escalation of the
war on Colombian peasants. We have the role now of introducing to these
combatants that their strength has been in their internationalism, as expressed
when Fidel Castro thanked one and all in Quebec and greeted the demonstrators by
stating that "Cuba supports you, greets you and embraces you with fraternity".
When Fidel spoke these words, he was also condemning the Canadian government for
it's treatment of it's own people in the same address. This was therefore, in
direct response to the repression of the anarchist organised marches, since the
labour one was treated with the utmost respect by the police who were tied up
downtown fighting against crowds who did not accept their military action to
hold FTAA negotiations behind walls.
At the Walls, in the cities we have seen them built, is where Black Bloc people
and other anarchists- such as the White Overalls- as well as many communists and
other independents are trying to stop these meetings by the proverbial "any
means necessary". The "Black Bloc" tactics, as well as their very compositions,
are such an extended variety that any overall analysis of "what is" will lead to
immediate frustration and more importantly confusion. It is important to go over
the composition of the demonstrations' anarchist components as a whole, and
factor in the Black Bloc as a separate issue. I will start with Seattle. A year
before the actual meeting that was scheduled to begin on Nov 30, 1999 happened,
a group called the Direct Action Network was set-up. It was heavily Anarchist
inspired, although it's main mandate was a non-violent attempt to shut down the
WTO. It was set up in conjunction with several activists receiving a grant from
unions in the amount of $100 000.00. They rented a space and organised
tirelessly- the methods that were inspirational were as much a factor as the
actual success of the action for me, whatever that is worth, in seeing this as
something new that did not fit the paradigm I had studied previously.
The affinity groups show radical democracy in practice. The whole practice of
groups such as the DAN (and later the CLAC in Quebec) are the things I hear the
most fondness for in people's memories. The total decentralisation (and the
major advantages it has for the success of a direct action) has become a visible
reality. Almost all demonstrations are now organised around North America- and
perhaps across Europe- with these as major premises. In the situation where your
goal is to do something militant, yet realistic- such as shutting down a meeting
for one day- decentralisation of this sort means something very different. It
means that groups have total autonomy beyond agreeing with the statements of the
organisers of the march as per tactics. In Seattle, that meant non-violence. In
Quebec, that meant non-violence and acceptance of the law in the Green Zones;
the acceptance of illegal but peaceful action in the Yellow Zones; the CLAC
couldn't promise anything (it was the weak point in the fence, the shortest
distance to the meeting and the symbolic target of the militant demonstrators)
in the red Zones. Even though there were many blocks of distance and no Black or
Red Blocks in the Green (or even the Yellow) Zones, all three were gassed and
and attacked in vicious succession and repeatedly in Quebec City. Were there no
Black Bloc and Red masked people attacking the illegal police line at the front-
then the police would have not been distracted by "shock troops" and would have
utterly smashed the back end of the demonstrations.
In Seattle, they attempted similar marches, but all in repeated fashion- to
allow people to follow different flags to different places whenever they changed
their tack. The intersection blockades began quietly at approximately 5am in
such a fashion as to be like the arms of an octopus. The people locked down and
put metal around their arms to guarantee more time before the police
successfully broke it up. These people also had decentralised support groups:
people who would come around with water, with food- anything to provide physical
or moral support. Decentralisation was helped immensely by the fact that so
many of the organisers were able to make revolutionary use of those reactionary
cell-phones. With the cell phones, support for weakened areas of different
blockades could be provided at the drop of a hat, instead of trying to sort
through the maze of downtown Seattle, occupied by thousands and clogged shoulder
to shoulder.
If there had been a system other than this- in this case- there would have been
less success for the days action. It worked, in the face of massive volleys of
tear gas- to keep the demo solid and strong and able to reinforce itself by
hitting the speed dial. That- is new to North America and is creating a
movement, whose greatest weakness is also its greatest strength: that the
demonstrators believe that how people get to the better society must be as
democratic as the new society itself is promising to be. Right or wrong, this is
now a mantra. This is the inspiration that people are taking back from the
demonstrations and putting into practice in their organising. Let us all imagine
what kind of world would be in birth if the Trade Unionists, the honest ones,
got a wind of this and attempted to put such democratic mechanisms into their
own locals and halls! Such is just another argument to get the TUB's out of the
way- or at least to smash down their opposition to coming to the front lines.
The Anarchists, from Quebec to Seattle, are not articulating a vision: they are
DEMONSTRATING a vision. Their vision will inspire all but the most cynical and
probably outdated among us, once seen up close and personally.
BLACK BLOC THOUGHTS
With response and reference to the Black Bloc. Let me start by pointing out the
first action of anti-democratic practice in the anti-corporate globalisation
movement - one whereby the previous decision laid out for a demonstration was
over-ridden by elitist nonsense- this was not carried out by any "Black Bloc".
True, the Black Bloc didn't ask DAN to set aside time or space for their actions
in Seattle, but some 3-4 hours prior to the launch of anything with a crow bar
came the SINGLE HANDED, NON-CONSULTED decision of the Sweeney bunch and the
AFL-CIO hierarchy to change their own march route. They didn't see anything that
was a violation of a prior political decision made, expressed and related to the
DAN/volunteer blockade organisers. Some strata think they can do whatever they
want, it seems- and no one on the left can call them to account for the results
of their actions. The Labour tops unilaterally- and in complete abandonment of
the principles of democratic practice that the opponents of the Black Bloc so
cherish for the Masked folk- re-routed people away from "trouble". That route
was intended to go through the downtown of Seattle, to us. The workers were
quietly, without input sought or generated, steered off course and silently home
except for the more noble and brave unions, such as the ILWU. The Black Bloc was
to show up later, some time after 4:30pm.
I make this point only to illustrate that the "anti-democratic" charge means
nothing compared to the wholesale class treason of leaving our blockades alone
to face the police. The police were rioting and had declared a full-emergency de
facto- long before any Black Bloc, and were doing so when that proud union the
AFL-CIO did their faithful service to the ruling class of US Imperialism, hoping
for the "reward" of a "seat at the table". The workers officialdom committed the
first great breach. Since then, they have not returned. They have been begged at
every action, by non-violent and "no position" anarchists and other organisers
of challenges to the anti-democratic meeting. These same people and their
supporters, despite their location miles (and sometimes, days) away from the
challenge to corporate rule, then speak of "democracy".
In the case of Seattle, the Black Bloc members were allowed to carry out their
attacks on Starbucks and Nike, it seemed, for longer than necessary (in state
repression terms). I believe this was done so as to do two things: create a
climate of fear and repression in Seattle in order to "justify" their assaults
of the next day- where they arrested hundreds- and "sweep" the city for one. The
National Guard and the state of emergency were for theatrical effect as well,
leading those who were not there to believe the Black Bloc was somehow the
reason for the out and out fascistic nature of the police that day. However, as
already stated- such an interpretation is to put the cart before the horse
entirely. Armoured Personnel Carriers were used throughout the day as part of
their attack on peaceful blockades that shut down the WTO. So was pepper spray,
tear gas and police on horseback charging into crowds with truncheons drawn.
Tear gas isn't something that is used to scare a crowd, tear gas is painful and
only doesn't kill because no one stays in a cloud of it. To use that on us is a
military assault by them. The rubber bullets were fired all day. Some the size
of small rocks and actually plastic, nothing at all like a bouncy rubber
compound. All told, it is not true- in any way- that the demonstration
experienced more repression as a result of Black Bloc antics.
The reason people need to get this reality straight, - the actual order of
events- is that this movement was never allowed to exist AT ALL within a
peaceful manner. It has been militarised since the first hours. Thus, all the
Geldofs and TUB's blather about "violence" is so much cover for them, their
cowardice, betrayal and their system and system of beliefs. The movement started
out as militant but peaceful and this first violence was the response of the
Seattle Police on the orders of capital. It has been the response of the police
in Washington, at both party conventions for the last American election, the
conference in Prague; the conference in Papua New Guinea; the demonstrations in
Gotenberg; the demonstrations in Quebec City and now the murder of our soldier
in Genoa. The Wall itself was the first act of violence in Quebec. In the case
of each demonstration, the positive response has been that so many people prefer
resisting this to watching reruns of M*A*S*H*.
Why do people care, and why are more getting involved? Material conditions alone
have existed for a long time. Thatcher and Reagan are no longer only yesterday.
Those were the people who ran the world when today's adults were children. What
I believe is making the slow snowball effect take place is the coupling of the
material conditions are being squeezed out of the working class day-by-day, yet
now people are seeing other people who are willing, for only convictions'sake,
go out to these demonstrations and try to close them down. Then the state
teaches them some basics from Engels and even Weber. After that, what world are
we living in if we think that that isn't inspiring people? There are many people
who simply are taking to this with the mindset that they will be there because
the government is acting in such a dictatorial manner. These are facts. The ones
who resist, like the White Overalls, are gaining massive influence through their
willingness to tear down these walls. It is very true that they have strange
poetry to them. So does Subcommandante Marcos. So did Mao Zedong. After all, the
great rebellions all create their own culture. Let us continue with our own as
well. The Black Bloc, as I mentioned from the beginning of all this, can not be
"labelled" and described as anything. They operate on a whoever puts on the mask
basis. The actions in Seattle, ironically for me, are the ones that actually had
me the most angry. It was also the symbolical start to something that isn't
going away. They are to the demonstrations -as has been said- like the weather.
The weather and the Black Bloc both protected innocent demonstrators from tear
gas in Quebec City- and I imagine elsewhere, too.
The Black Bloc actions seen in Seattle- repeated over and over again, of simply
going out and looking for Starbucks and the like would become alienating in and
of themselves. However, without the Black Bloc who also did that regrettable
stuff- we had no chance at all to tear down the Wall in Quebec. They were a
large sector of the troops who tied the ropes around and tore down the Wall-
they also spent their time ahead of the demo getting together the thick gloves
and gas masks that were used BRILLIANTLY (all but once in my line of vision)- to
clear out the tear gas canisters the moment they arrived in our square. It was
our territory, and yes- we had a right to defend it. We had, in my mind- a duty
to tell the ruling class and the rest of the planet that with our actions. Sure,
they win physically- but we win morally. The days are over where the people lie
down for all such actions on the part of the state and imperialism. Good
riddance to them. Do we resist everytime? That also, would be foolhardy, and is
an alienating factor being developed as strategy by some militants. We cannot
do that; we pick instead targets we can successfully crash. The Wall in Quebec
was one and there was nothing anti-democratic about this radical action- even by
the terms of the defenders of treachery.
A decent and valuable critique to make of the anarchists (in general terms) is a
tendency to lean towards direct action itself as a strategy. Defeats, even in
almost purely symbolic battles, do nothing to galvanise the people. In the case
of a demo of hundreds or small thousands- "direct action" means a counter attack
and defeat that will end up far more ugly than anything done by the combatants
will appear as light. The willingness to combat the system has been expressed by
many people, thousands at a time in fact. What we need to do is learn how to
weigh and balance our combativity for battles where we can win. Genoa appears to
have been just such a place.
FASCISTS IN GENOA
The action in Genoa had a similar glorious tilt to it- the propaganda against
the demonstrators, the violence that was being expected, all of this- singularly
didn't work in scaring people away and in places had precisely the opposite
effect. Back to the Black Bloc specifically- let us not consider condemning them
for throwing tear gas into the alleyways or onto rooftops- or best- back at the
police line. I have maintained all along that I am not a fan of the trashing of
store windows and the like. However we all cannot condemn them using their
repertoire to defend the population and the crowd; clearing the air for the
people I the area who were protesting with their bodies but not their
combativity needs high praise in the instances it has happened, whether in
Prague, Quebec or Genoa. What people all over the Marxist left are doing to
disgrace themselves is associating the actions of the police and infiltrators
from fascist organisations with the Black Bloc themselves. There is a clear line
here.We know that the Black Bloc did not do the attacking of crowds in Genoa-
this was police. With this as knowledge, anything else said about the Black Bloc
in Genoa is simple slander and worse, out of place sectarianism. As much as this
is smaller potatoes at work here- it would be comparable to saying that ambush
actions by a "rival" guerrilla group from ours should be condemned because there
is the risk of para-militaries donning the same outfit. Further, regardless of
the reality- that it is righteous for a crowd to defend itself from tear gas,
such an action can be recorded and get you charged later. To call for the
removal of the Black masks is to call for prison terms to misguided comrades. A
better solution, if one is needed, is for law abiding, peaceful citizens to wear
the masks as well. Then targeting of one then is to say nothing of the
likelihood of guilt for the other. Targeting the Anarchists- or even simply the
Black Bloc- when police infiltration created the situation which led to the
police riot in Genoa is to not only cross a line it is to confuse enemies badly.
SOCIAL DEMOCRATS & THEIR ROLE.
Social Democrats are also currently among the people who will tell the tape. I
consider a social-democrat to be someone looking for a labour or radically left
rhetorically led party in America, or belong to the established S-D's now and
are already somewhat alienated on the left in these parties. I am speaking of
the value of these rank and file; those who would work for the DSA or the Greens
in America, but are not party leaders. With that as my definition, allow me to
state that they can currently be- in Canada at least- a major help to our
movement. What is needed to guard against, however- are the new attempts to
constitute a new party- the "New Politics Initiative". The times are such that
we are starting to have a vaster pool of resource labour among activists as more
people become involved. To make the NPI work, I believe it would cost the time
and energy of too many of the best Social Democrats existing today. What we need
from these people is to simply follow their own beliefs around a set of demands.
Demand to include all trade deals- such as the FTAA or APEC- in a set of simple
referenda. If this campaign were to generate any support, the system would have
a crisis: Deal with the possibility of having the number one facet of the agenda
of the global economy, or to tell the people no they don't get input? The ruling
class would have to decide. And either way such a campaign turns out, the
anti-corporate globalisation movement wins. Either they expose their hypocrisy
or they risk their policies and all of the people begin to engage real debate on
the core, real issues.
Police provocation did not start in Genoa and will not end with black masks and
anarchistic outfits. What began in Genoa- unless the imperialists are smart and
back off a bit- was the massive repression of the state and capital of what's
left of the rights of the populations. The right to demonstrate in favour of a
healthy environment, food we trust, working conditions that resemble humanity,
equal rights for immigrants and sovereignty for states and nations above and
beyond that of capital. The right for that very expression is being challenged,
yet it is those very rights that capitalisms whole fa�ade rests upon. When that
comes off, what is left? Nothing. Absolutely nothing but greed and
self-justifications for it. Plunder and deception. Sexism and racism, born and
bred in the First World and exported to the colonies. "Democracy"- that whole
pile of shit that gave us Bush II through to Vinciente Fox and now Zoran
Djindjic, all of it- this is their only pillar of strength. To demonstrate for
the right to demonstrate is to call on them to prove it. They cannot prove it.
And if they won't even extend those rights here, in the heartland of "Western
values and democracy"- what does this say to the rest of the world? They can
only attack and repress our cries for democracy. We are the ones who have the
job of standing up to that repression, when they repress it by fiat through
chain link walls, and when they repress it by attacking our comrades and others
from behind and in front of the same Walls. If we are to mean anything to the
new consciousness, it is that only we speak for democracy. The most democratic
expression in the world is the mission we need to capture: revolution. Bottom
up.
"To Resist is to Win" - East Timorese resistance slogan during Indonesian rule.
"Por todos nuestros muertos, ni un minuto de silencio. Toda una vida de lucha."
[To honor our dead, not a minute of silence. A whole life of struggle.]
Macdonald Stainsby
-------------------------------------------
Macdonald Stainsby
Rad-Green List: Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion.
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
----
Leninist-International: Building bridges in the tradition of V.I. Lenin.
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
----
In the contradiction lies the hope.
--Bertholt Brecht
