developing an alternative (reply to Joan)

["Ben Seattle" <left-transparency@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Joan,

You had some comments in relation to Seattle-WTO in November 1999
and Genoa today.

Ben:
>  And criticism of incorrect tactics
>  is justified and called for.

Joan:
> Unless it is directed at Mac's precious
> Black Block - then we are all sectarians.

I believe that you are mischaracterizing Mac's position.

Ben:
> What Louis, Joan and others cannot see are the two key factors
> that have led to the emergence of anarchism (as opposed to
> marxism) as the dominant ideology within the anti-globalization
> movement:
>
> (1) the historic pattern of accommodation
>      of the "marxist" movement to:
>      (a) the corrupt strata often referred to
>           as the "labor aristocracy",
>      (b) the ideology of social-democracy
>      (c) the striving for "respectability" in the eyes
>           of these "natural allies"
>
> (2) the bankruptcy of "marxism" as an ideology which has
>       not yet come to terms with its history as a state
religion
>       in the hands of the enemies of the working class

Joan:
> I see point one

Good.  We are on the same page.

Ben:
> I will note here that Louis and Joan have
> both counter-posed the respectable corn-fed trade union
> bureaucrats (hereinafter "TUB's") to the "anarchists".

Joan:
> Since when do union bureaucrats
> don the marshall's armbands?

I witnessed this personally, as did approximately 30,000 people.

The TUBs organized a big rally at the civic center (the area by
the Space Needle) about two miles from downtown (where the street
blockades were taking place).  After hours of boring speeches the
march began.  As soon as the march got near where the blockades
were taking place it turned around.  The people who were
directing traffic and setting the march route were shop stewards
and people under the control of the TUBs.

Our movement would be at a much higher level of consciousness if
_half_ of the outrage that has been directed at the few youth
breaking windows were directed at this kind of sabotage by the
TUBs.  To be more concrete, Joan, I would be pleased if half of
the outrage that you direct at the back block were directed at
the TUBs.

Carrol Cox noted that it can be useful to view these things as
being somewhat like the weather.  We can't make the rain stop
falling.  We can't stop the labor aristocracy from betraying the
movement.  We can't stop a small number of youth from engaging in
counter-productive action.  What strikes the wrong note, in my
view, is that you appear to be upset more at the black block than
at the treachery of the TUBs.

The point that I believe we should all strive to see is that the
mindless and counter-productive actions of a small number of kids
are a reaction to the treachery of the stratum of the labor
aristocracy (defined broadly: not just the TUB's but the various
"respectable" misleaders) which actively seeks to channel all
protest into actions that are tame and without spirit.  The
damage that is caused by the stratum of the labor aristocracy is
vastly worse than that of the black block--but this damage is
often *less visible* because it usually takes place quietly.

> I actually identified more than these two
> agents. I had to because Mac kept posing the
> formula of Black Block v. Labour; and the situation
> was actually more complex. Stainsby is fond of false
> dichotomies.

I think that we should all be careful about false dichotomies.

Ben:
> The most powerful tactics at the Seattle-WTO actions
> were the mass tactics of blocking the streets.

Joan:
> This was not organized by the Black Blocks.

Quite correct.  What you appear to overlooking, however, is that
no one is making such a claim.

Joan:
> The Black Blocks, as we saw from their own manifesto,
> was one sector of the affinity groups. They had an
> objective of window-smashing right from the start,
> knowing full well that everyone else wanted peacefull
> resistance. They actively fought with peace marshals
> present at the downtown demonstration, when the labour
> demonstration was nowhere in sight.

Ok.

> I have praised the sit-in people to the skies. But these
> were not the Black Block, whom Stainsby insists we worship.

Here is where I believe your tunnel vision is leading in a
direction which is counter-productive.  Here is my suggestion: go
thru the posts that Mac has written and find a passage where he
insists we worship the black block.  It is very important that we
deal with people's actual positions.  Otherwise we are not making
good use of our time.

Ben:
> These tactics were actually more militant and successful
> than the few kids who broke windows and stuff.  Both
> Lou and Joan, however, present matters as if the two
> main trends at Seattle-WTO were: (1) the TUB's and
> their rank-and-file followers and (2) the few
> window-breaking kids.

Joan:
> No, I do not. I identified at least three different agents.
> Have you always been this reading-impaired?

Joan, if I misrepresented your position I stand corrected and I
offer you my apology.  I try to be extremely accurate when I
describe someone's position.

Ben:
> But the dozen or so window-breaking kids were an
> insignificant minority that were important mainly to the
> bourgeois press.

Joan:
> They gave the city the excuse it needed
> to call a state of emergency.

The city would probably have called a state of emergency anyway.
The window-breaking made it easier to call the state of
emergency.

Joan:
> I'm glad you recognize that they were a minority. That
> is the first step in breaking Stainsby's false dichotomy.

I think it is safe to say that Mac recognizes that the
window-breakers in Seattle were a small minority.  Everyone on
the left knows this.  It is not a good use of anyone's time to
pretend that Mac holds positions which he does not hold.

Ben:
> The *real division* was between: (1) the TUB's
> and their rank and file followers (approximately 30,000 people)
> and (2) those activists who resisted tear gas and blocked the
> streets (well under 10,000 people).

Joan:
> No, the key division, if we are to discuss Black Block
> tactics, is between the teargas-resisters and the Black
> Block. The key division, if we are discussing the
> development of the anti-globalization movement, is
> between the TUBs and the minority of their rank and
> file who broke ranks and joined the teargas-resisters.

Joan, I was speaking of the logistics of action and the division
of trends.  As far as the development of the anti-globalization
movement, you are correct: the key division is between the labor
aristocracy on the one hand and the majority who want to push the
movement forward.

Ben:
> And, as they did, these workers were soon joined
> by many others as what was at first a trickle turned
> into a steady stream.  It turns out, I guess, that many
> of the workers were sort of looking for an excuse
> to defy their shepherds.

Joan:
> But their small numbers frustrate Stainsby.
> He takes it out on us.

If there were greater recognition on this list of the treachery
of the TUBs there would probably be less frustration.

Ben:
> The emergence of the anarchist ideology is the price
> the working class has to pay for the sins of reformism.

Joan:
> Bad working class! I guess we'll send
> them home without supper tonight!

Ben:
> Large numbers of activists have an instinctive aversion
> to the straight-jacket that many well-meaning
> know-it-alls would seek to have them wear.

Joan:
> And here we have the obligatory sectarian jab -
> not very imaginative; but, it must be done.

I think that you are being premature to label my actions as such.

Ben:
> If we cannot see the cowardice and opportunism of the
> "respectable" movement misleaders we are in a weak position to
> lecture "anarchists" over the adventurism of a small minority
> within their ranks.

Joan:
> No-one is lecturing anarchists. Stainsby is supposedly
> a Marxist. Like his precious Black Block, Stainsby
> folds in a fight. He has left our ranks because we are
> too mean to him.

It is probably more that it is a waste of his time to be part of
a discussion where his views are continually being distorted.

Ben:
> Also, the many demand[s] that the various leftist youth groups
> place themselves under the "democratic control" of the majority
> of the movement can be highly misleading.

Joan:
> What democratic control? There was no organization to
> impose control. The democracy I was talking about was
> the spontaneous, vote-with-your-feet kind. People showed
> up to a peacefull demonstration because that's what they
> wanted. They talked over the sit-in at the intersections and
> decided to do it (these discussions took place during the
> course of the demonstations). The activists were fully
> prepared to be arrested in the traditional passive resistance
> tradition.

This is why I brought up the post by Phil Ferguson's on the 1981
anti-Springbok mobilizations in New Zealand.  There is a strong
tendency by many to make "passive vs. active resistance" the
dividing line between what is productive and counter-productive.
But Phil's post shows that this would be seriously misleading.
There are many different factors involved and a wide variety of
situations and circumstances.  Mac argued (I think) that in some
situations pulling down a gate and breaking thru a line of police
is useful and productive.  In other situations it will not be.
Let's consider a different kind of example: workers militantly
defending a picket line against scabs and police.  Is it ok to
fight with the police to defend a picket line?  If we look at
things this way we will see that the only correct answer is: "it
depends".  It depends on all the factors that are present: What
are the relative strengths of the opposing forces?  What is the
history of the conflict?  Who would likely _win_ in a physical
confrontation?

I believe it would be helpful if you were to acknowledge this.

In the concrete circumstances of Seattle-WTO in November 1999 it
was the mass blocking of the streets that proved to be the most
militant and successful.  But even here, it was not all passive.
How about the activists who picked up tear-gas cannisters and
threw them back at the police?  Are you going to say that this
was wrong?  I hope not.

Joan:
> The rock through the window changed all that.

This is why it is frustrating discussing this with you.  This is
likely to be my last post replying to you.  Everyone knows that
the tear-gas and police attacks took place _before_ any windows
were broken.  You appear to forget this.  You appear to present
matters as if the attack by the state would not have happened
were it not for the few kids who broke windows.  I simple do not
have the time to exchange views with people who insist on
presenting matters in this way.

Ben:
>  Our banner remained visible only because
> we were prepared to defend it physically.

Joan:
> You prefer fighting with fellow activists
> to fighting the police.

At this point, you have let your prejudices get the best of you.

The organization I supported had the democratic right to tell
activists the truth about the reasons for the US intervention in
El Salvador.  We told activists the truth thru our leaflets and
our banner.  The truth was that the US was acting as it did
because of the political/economic system of imperialism.  The
demonstration organizers (ie: CISPES), on the other hand, opposed
use of the "provocative" and "ultra-left" word _imperialism_
because it upset their allies in the left wing of the Democratic
Party.

On the other hand, if we had listened to people like you--we
would have had to fold up our banner in order to avoid the
possibility of a fight.  And, hence, this is one example of the
straight-jacket that well-meaning know-it-alls would have
activists wear.  Don't use provocative words that will upset the
powers that be.

The truth is that a demonstration belongs to the masses.  No one
"owns" it.  Similarly the actions at Genoa provided an
opportunity for lots of different political trends to gather
their own experience.  Many of the black block tactics played
into the hands of the state, allowed police agents to pose as
bloc-istes, etc.  This will be summed up.  I hope that most of
the youth who have been attracted to this kind of politics will
learn from this experience.  And I have no problem with criticism
of the black bloc tactics.  It is the tunnel vision that I
oppose.

Ultimately we are going to have to recognize that the root of all
the problems of the left is the lack of a mass revolutionary
organization that has prestige and authority.  If such an
organization existed then far fewer kids would have been drawn to
counter-productive tactics--because they would have seen a
militant alternative to the groups that hanker after bourgeois
respectability.

Sincerely,
Ben Seattle
----//-// 29.Jul.2001
http://Leninism.org
http://egroups.com/group/theorist/

<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>
        How will economics, politics and culture work
        when the working class runs modern society?
        http://struggle.net/proletarian-democracy
<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>--<>