AUT: Re: Re: THE ANTI-G8 PROTESTS IN CALGARY

["Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "cwright" <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 9. juli 2002 06.08
Subject: AUT: Re: THE ANTI-G8 PROTESTS IN CALGARY

A couple of comments Chris (Wright) to yout thoughts around
the "diversity of tacticts" thread:

You write "For people I know, diversity of tactics was originally
a slogan aimed at opening up demonstrations, of breaking the
stage-managing by Leninists and Liberals. ..."

Or in other words, it was opportunistic. That is one reason why
I never managed to take the term too seriously. Another way to
put it is that it serves as means of depolitization. No need to
discuss political ends and means (these seemed to have be-
come completly dicorced), means of direct , indirect and symbolic
communication, and the concrete possible political consequences
of ones acts and priorities. Everything is real, and all that is real
is good, just as in the marketplace.
        Another thing is that implicit assumption always seem to
be a "diversity" among activists, as if they made up the whole
world, and where the center of the world always remains
"demos".
        There is also some other funny things involved, on the one
hand one hate the liberals and Leninists (though it might be said
that  the most "militant" faction often also include liberals
and Leninists, members of Stalinist parties not excluded), on
the other hand one get desperate if they withdraw or decide to
march on their own. As they generally still make up the largest
numbers, the so-called "critical mass," another more often
than not stupefying, and in its essence instrumental term.
    So a greater degree of honesty and facing realities rather than
the spinning of myths about ones own importance, might be
called for.
        It is not that nothing positive happen. They do. And as you,
I find the idea of 'free speech zones' a pretty good idea if one
can manage to make them inclusive: Into real spaces for direct
communication and not just proclamations.

But when I want to address the question of "smashing of corpo-
rate property," or confrontation with the forces of law and order,
I want to address this in political terms and not through vague
concepts as "diversity of tactics"  (or through moralism).
That only serves the forces of stupefication and depolitization,
and in the final end, the forces of law and order and passivity.
Let us rather put the question of social communication as a
means for developing spaces and frameworkes for real collective
actions at the centre of discussions, and dare to say that for
some actions the term "stupid" is more telling than "militant."
Harald







     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---