mail recu sur notre boite et transmis a la demande de l'interresse pour debat...<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/9/29 Dissent! France Info Newsletter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dissent-fr-info@lists.aktivix.org">dissent-fr-info@lists.aktivix.org</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">On a reçu ce témoignage de Grande-Bretagne, et du coup, malheureusement,<br>
c'est en Anglais. Quelqu'un se sent de le traduire pour que le débat se<br>
tienne ?<br>
<br>
<br>
Are We Addicted to Rioting?<br>
<br>
Sunday, September 27 2009 @ 02:31 PM CDT<br>
<br>
Contributed by: Anonymous<br>
<br>
Views: 623<br>
Anarchist Movement<br>
<br>
By: Ryan Harvey - September 24, 2009<br>
<br>
The G20 is upon us, and though BBC world news featured some of "the<br>
troubles" in Pittsburgh, on the ground reports hardly match up with the<br>
media-inflation, police-inflation, and activist-inflation of the actual<br>
thing. As one who was not present in Pittsburgh, I cannot give a<br>
first-hand account. Phone calls with friends on the ground and various<br>
independent and corporate-media accounts are my window to the events.<br>
But as one who has participated in countless similar events, who didn't<br>
attend the G20 due to feelings of disconnection/confusion with my own<br>
people, I felt strongly enough to write this.<br>
<br>
As is often the case, big media makes things look a whole lot crazier<br>
than they actually are, if it's in the interests of higher ratings. And<br>
though most Americans if surveyed would be against rioting, they love to<br>
watch it on TV. So the media is hyping the G20 protests up enough to get<br>
some extra points, but not enough to anger their parent companies.<br>
<br>
The police of course have to inflate the threats posed by relatively<br>
small numbers of protestors to justify the gigantic amount of city,<br>
state and federal tax-payer money used to buy new weapons, vehicles,<br>
chemical munitions, and armor. They get to keep all these goodies to use<br>
against whomever crosses their path in the future. So little pebbles<br>
getting tossed at robo-cops become boulders and little marches becoming<br>
security threats.<br>
<br>
To match these two forces, the protest groups, especially my own<br>
comrades in the anarchist groups, inflate their stories, numbers, and<br>
actions to try to gain support and build momentum, and to make them feel<br>
better. So a dumpster getting rolled down a street into an intersection<br>
will be heroized in well-designed pamphlets to come and talked about for<br>
years the way my generation still talks about the fence-chasing incident<br>
at A16, (World Bank/IMF protests on April 16, 2000 in DC).<br>
<br>
What is so crazy about all of this, this inflation is that it doesn't<br>
seem to help. As an organizer with a decade of experience in all types<br>
of work, from anarchist organizations to peace groups to labor<br>
organizing, I don't think over-hyping our actions does anything for us.<br>
In fact, I think it works to our disadvantage. It adds to a culture of<br>
dishonesty, of not addressing our shortcomings, of not reflecting and<br>
refining our work.<br>
<br>
Now Pittsburgh had a crowd of 4,000-10,000 people according to different<br>
reports. While this is a big number in general, it's not so big compared<br>
to public opinions on such issues at the bailout, corporate executive<br>
bonuses, or the global economic order in general. Most folks in the U.S.<br>
are pretty angry, from the far left to the independent<br>
right/libertarians. Instead of congratulating ourselves on a "large<br>
turnout", we should be asking why it wasn't nearly size of most anti-war<br>
demonstrations that have happened. Not to put ourselves down in anyway,<br>
but to consider the factors so that we can go about building a stronger<br>
movement for economic justice. When we don't look into these factors, we<br>
are walking blind.<br>
<br>
Another major issue in these protests is that when militant groups<br>
over-hype themselves before-hand, to make themselves seem bigger, more<br>
powerful, and often more willing to use violence or property<br>
destruction, they invite and allow public justification for large,<br>
well-funded and well-equipped police action... And they are not prepared<br>
to take it. They are usually fronting, thinking that talking big will<br>
make the actual thing big. This is not how organizing works. You<br>
actually have to do the work, not just front like you have. You end up<br>
in dangerous situations when you do this.<br>
<br>
A flimsy PVC-reinforced banner is not going to last long against a few<br>
riot-police, it never has. I've seen it many times and it's never done<br>
anything more than look cool in a photo to those who've never seen the<br>
damn things break on impact. I once saw a cop beat an anarchist with a<br>
piece of his own broken PVC "shield" banner.<br>
<br>
I came from this scene, learned all the tactical terms, and met many<br>
good people who I ran in the streets with, and we got into some crazy<br>
situations. I have been around the bloc a few times. I have inhaled tear<br>
gas and pepper spray, heard the close-up clicks on the infamous taser,<br>
and heard the sobering sounds of riot batons breaking human bones. I<br>
once saw a guy almost burn a hole in his hand throwing a tear gas<br>
canister back at the police in Quebec City in 2001. At the beginning of<br>
the Iraq war, I helped drag a 16 year-old girl away from a group of<br>
police who were beating her in DC. Both her ankles and one of her arms<br>
were broken. In Miami in 2003, I heard the explosion of "less-lethal"<br>
weapons and heard a loud pop next to me. As I turned, a middle-aged<br>
woman was starting to run away with blood literally pouring out of her<br>
mouth. She had been hit in the face with a rubber bullet.<br>
<br>
After that incident I began a long reflective process, one that started<br>
in the bloodstained streets of Miami and hasn't stopped yet, hopefully<br>
it never will. Something clicked when the blood poured out of this<br>
woman's mouth; this is for real. I am really here and we are really<br>
getting the shit kicked out of us. What before seemed sort of fun, sort<br>
of therapeutic, sort of educational, now seemed totally dangerous,<br>
serious, and life-threatening.<br>
<br>
It also became clear that our actions in the streets were not usually<br>
connected to any real strategy to achieve change, no goals that we could<br>
attain, no real meaning for being there at that time, besides to ruin<br>
the party for the bigwigs. Not that that's a bad thing to do, it's just<br>
not worth my eye, hand, or life. It went on like this for years for me<br>
before I sobered up, took a step back, and realized I was in the middle<br>
of a big mess, a mess with very few details. It was like a messy room<br>
that only has large furniture in it, no scraps of paper, no old dishes,<br>
no crumbs. Everything upon observation was really clear, it was obvious<br>
what was wrong.<br>
<br>
I began to think about my purpose for protest, my desire for economic<br>
and social justice, peace, and equality. As I reflected, I became<br>
disillusioned with protest, burned out, depressed, and lost. It took a<br>
while to crawl out of it, but I came out on top. I learned a lot during<br>
my down time and came to some understandings.<br>
<br>
One of the clearest understandings I reached, one that was really<br>
solidified recently after reading a book called War Is A Force That<br>
Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges, is that me and many friends were<br>
pretty much addicted to these intense street situations. We were<br>
engaging in "combat scenarios" and really, to a scary degree, creating<br>
mini-war scenes where we could play out some strange fantasies.<br>
<br>
War is A Force That Gives Us Meaning talks about the strange attraction<br>
that people have to war, even those highly opposed to it. Even those<br>
scarred by it, terrified by it, and deeply effected by it. Some go into<br>
war and get real messed up, vowing to never return, only to soon find<br>
themselves desiring that adrenaline, the fear, the intensity. Hedges was<br>
a journalist in Bosnia, El Salvador, Lebanon, and Iraq. He realized<br>
after many years that he was experiencing a type of addiction, seeking a<br>
high that can only be attained in a combat situation.<br>
<br>
I fear that we too, anarchists and street militants, have similar<br>
symptoms. We intentionally go into situations that we know are<br>
dangerous, that we often know don't really have any solid plan. Maybe<br>
it's part machismo, maybe it's part desperation, maybe it's part legit<br>
too, but I think it's a lot of high-seeking. We desire the intensity,<br>
the rush. We get to enact roles that we don't get to enact in our<br>
everyday lives, heroism, bravery, sacrifice, quick thinking,<br>
fear-testing, and some forms of solidarity. We also get to experience<br>
prison, pain, and life-changing trauma.<br>
<br>
All of this is well worth it if we have our eyes on the prize and are<br>
fully aware of the risks, reasons, and responsibilities of these types<br>
of actions. The risks are obvious, the reasons usually are few and far<br>
between (meaning we usually don't have a very sound strategic approach<br>
to protest that results in the real changes we desire). The<br>
responsibilities are usually totally missing, aside from street medics<br>
and basic legal support. But larger ones, like trauma support for years<br>
afterwards, support for those abused in prison, networks of real care<br>
and compassion like those veterans have created with groups like Vets 4<br>
Vets and Homefront Battle Buddies to heal from the painful experiences<br>
of violence, don't exist yet.<br>
<br>
I have seen all of this go pretty much unnoticed by those of us who<br>
organized actions that resulted in the trauma, like those of us who<br>
helped organize in Miami. A lot of us who were there learned that lesson<br>
real quick afterwards, but a bit too late. I know a woman who has full<br>
audio/visual flashbacks from Miami, another parallel with war, and a<br>
common symptom of PTSD. Many of my friends have PTSD from their<br>
experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would not be surprising if many<br>
of us have been coping with similar effects from Philadelphia, Miami,<br>
DC, and St. Paul and didn't know it because we are not in a movement<br>
that is prepared to handle or reflective enough to admit such things.<br>
<br>
While the experiences of violence can easily change you, I don't want to<br>
dwell on this too much. I don't want my point to get blurred. I'm not<br>
scared of violence all the time. I'm not against violence all the time.<br>
I'm not against riots all the time, and I'm not against folks putting<br>
themselves in harms way just to prove a point all the time. But I am no<br>
longer lending my support to these acts if they are not solidly rooted<br>
in an organizational and movement-wide foundation, supported by large<br>
numbers of people who understand their purpose and the steps to take<br>
afterwards. If we are "stepping it up" or "escalating" without the<br>
massive numbers of people that we were previously standing with, we are<br>
losing people, and are thus destined to fail. I don't want to be in a<br>
people-less movement, I want to build strong movements that can take<br>
bold and seemingly dangerous steps together, growing as they move<br>
forward. This can justify the risk.<br>
<br>
On the question of "Violence VS Non-Violence" I opt out. I respond with<br>
a better question: "What is your goal?". Then I consider the goals, how<br>
they link up to a larger strategy, and how it effects its movement as a<br>
whole. "Will it make you stronger?". "Will it hurt your organizing<br>
efforts?". These are the relevant questions. Then I ask, "What do you<br>
need to do to achieve your goal?". Then I consider the question of<br>
violence or non-violence. It's more of a tactical concern, and tactical<br>
concerns stem from a goal, which usually stems from an even bigger goal,<br>
which stems from a strategy.<br>
<br>
If you roll a dumpster at the police, why are you doing it? To prove a<br>
point? To block a street? To open a street? To cause a diversion to pull<br>
off another action? To impress the media? To impress your friends? To<br>
get it out of the way? To get it in the way? These are relevant<br>
questions, far more relevant than whether or not it's morally acceptable<br>
to roll a dumpster around. But then you must ask yourself why you are<br>
trying to achieve that tactical goal. Are you blockading a meeting? Are<br>
you causing chaos to make the summit look bad? Are you trying to get<br>
media attention? Do you want revenge on the police? Then you must ask<br>
yourself why you are blockading the meeting or causing chaos or trying<br>
to get on TV. Who are you trying to effect? Who's your base? If you want<br>
media attention, who are you trying to reach out to? What is your<br>
message for them? If you are trying to cause chaos, what is the purpose?<br>
Who is it serving? How is it advancing your goals? What effect will it<br>
have on your movement next week, next month, next year? What is the<br>
follow-up to all of this?<br>
<br>
That's how winning movements think. Those are the critical questions to<br>
ask, among others. Unfortunately, I never experienced a single anarchist<br>
group that considered any of this. We just went out and did the craziest<br>
stuff, had a few parties/events in the next few months, and started the<br>
next round of last-minute militant protest organizing, building for our<br>
next street-fantasy, the omnipresent and mythological "next Seattle". We<br>
were chasing a high that we didn't even understand.<br>
<br>
In pursuit of this high, we got lost in our own imagery and rhetoric. We<br>
convinced ourselves that we, the anarchists, were the movement. We were<br>
the ones who were important, the ones who made the difference between a<br>
dinky permitted march and a history-making mobilization. We used Seattle<br>
as the ultra-reference, where a group of a few dozen black bloc<br>
anarchists caused over 4 million dollars in property damage. Nevermind<br>
the other 49,000 + people in Seattle's actions, sacrifices, and hard<br>
work. Nevermind the union workers rushing into downtown to defend those<br>
doing civil disobedience. Nevermind those who locked down peacefully or<br>
used human chains to blockade delegate hotels. We were too obsessed with<br>
ourselves to let other folks steal out glory. We called them all<br>
"liberals", and this was the ultimate diss.<br>
<br>
A recent Crimethinc report on the Pittsburgh G20 says that the black<br>
bloc-portion of the protests "signifies the survival of militant street<br>
resistance in the Obama era.". But I ask to what end? Militant street<br>
resistance against what? For what? What kind of vague movement are we<br>
part of if we discuss our tactics as if they are the very point of using<br>
them? Is "militant street protest" an end in itself? Why? What about the<br>
"survival of a sustained movement for economic justice"? Why don't we<br>
discuss the things we are working for? Are we working for "militant<br>
street protests" or are we working towards a broad social goal? Do<br>
anarchists no longer think in terms of issues, goals, or things they<br>
care about? Just vague notions of "freedom" (like the freedom to light a<br>
dumpster on fire) or "resistance" (a habit of attending and organizing<br>
semi-annual pre-staged battles with the police)?<br>
<br>
This insurrectionary rhetoric that is so popular today among us young<br>
anarchists is belittling and destroying anarchism. It's turning it into<br>
a mythic fantasy world, where things magically change because someone<br>
breaks a window or quits their job. And it's pulling a lot of young<br>
people into situations where they are often hurting long-term movements<br>
for change, rather than reinforcing them. Today's "Anarchism" is too<br>
disconnected from larger movements, too fragmented in it's own, and too<br>
carried away with it's own romanticism.<br>
<br>
These are serious critiques and questions from a comrade, someone who<br>
throws their heart into positive work every day for serious, radical<br>
social change. I write not to piss my friends off or put people down,<br>
but to challenge -urge- my friends to think very critically, very...<br>
Critically enough to make a meeting suck. Enough to make you really<br>
frustrated. Enough to spark heated but respectful discussion. Enough to<br>
make the work hard and controversial. It's not supposed to be this fun.<br>
The fun comes from the struggle. The fun is in light of the struggle. We<br>
don't struggle enough. We play around issues, organizing these events<br>
where we experience "street liberation", the high, and then spend the<br>
next few months coming down from it until we re-up. Crimethinc mentions<br>
the great high later in the same article, without admitting the<br>
contradictions of this strange addiction: "No words can do justice to<br>
this experience, but it is real".<br>
<br>
Is that why you take the streets, fellow anarchists? Are you searching<br>
for that feeling that cannot be explained? That adrenaline rush, that<br>
fear? Ask yourself this, and ask it in a serious way. Because if you,<br>
are you should reconsider your role in social movements, how you<br>
participate, how your actions reverberate, what effects they have on<br>
others. And perhaps you should take a deep breath and consider your<br>
priorities and those of the people around you. There's too much at stake<br>
to waste our time and energy preparing for and executing these<br>
theater-like confrontations.<br>
<br>
The anarchist groups are full of good people, committed, and hopefully<br>
those who will help contribute to positive social changes in our<br>
lifetimes. It is for you, the committed anarchists, that I write this. I<br>
want you to take my words seriously, because we have a lot of work to<br>
do, and most of it is not going to get done in the streets. It's going<br>
to get done on the doorsteps, the libraries, the churches, the labor<br>
halls, the schools, the military bases, the parks, the prisons, the<br>
abortion clinics, the neighborhood associations, the PTAs. And whatever<br>
it is, it's not going to be called Anarchism and it's not going to look<br>
like what you think it's going to look like. It's going to be new,<br>
fresh, original, organic, unique, and real. And it's going to be a<br>
combination of all of our society's best politics, ideas, experiences,<br>
and sincerity. And we are going to help make it happen.<br>
<br>
Let's take anarchism out of the streets for a while and put it back in<br>
the communities where it was born.<br>
><br>
<br><br>
</blockquote></div>