Reflecting on what the immigrant movement might learn from the "6A" statement

We were watching the local news a few years ago. A cameraperson for a local news broadcast was following Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio on a tour through his notoriously awful jail facility. It was being broadcast live and Joe was his usual cocky self.

Typical of the kind of uncritical platform that the media regularly gives Joe, he was armed with the mic himself. Obviously thrilled at his chance to speak directly, unfiltered, through the media, and filling the role himself that would normally be played by a reporter, he approached an inmate. "You enjoying your stay here?" he asked, chortling in that characteristic farm animal way he has.

"No, sir," replied the inmate, looking down and stating the obvious.

"You got anything you want to say?" grunted the sheriff to the inmate, sticking out the microphone again.

"Yeah. I do," said the prisoner, a visible rage welling up inside him. "I just want to say that every night before I go to sleep I pray that in the morning you'll wake up, go out to get your morning paper and get hit by a truck."

Infuriated, Arpaio called over the guards. "Put this wiseguy in solitary! Bread and water!"

The prisoner was hustled off in a rush, but even though we couldn't see his face anymore, we could tell he was smiling. And so were we.

I bring up this actual event because recently a controversial article, authored by "Anonymous Arizona Anarchist Advocates for the Assassination of Arpaio" ("6A") has been making the rounds. The article defends the deployment of the infamous "ASSASSINATE ARPAIO" banner which was on quite obvious and bold display at the January 16th march to the jail.

A lot can be said about the banner, and the writers do indeed say a lot themselves. The article is well-written and entertaining, and really doesn't require any additional defense, nor does it seem to ask for one. So I won't give one. I'm more interested in the questions it raises.

I do have some quibbles with it, however, which I'd like to get out of the way before I consider what the statement means for the movement. For instance, I can see the point of the authors making up quotes from silly pop stars. However, in the current climate, I think such fiction-writing comes across less as satire than is perhaps intended when it is extended to organizers like Sal Reza. I understand that a lot of people, myself included, legitimately feel like Sal has acted badly and said some ridiculous things ("crazies", denouncing us as unwelcome outsiders, etc). But while we envision a different sort of movement, we don't want to destroy it. I think its fine to take self-important movement leaders down a notch, but it's important not to inadvertently feed fears of police meddling.

It would be a shame if peoples' legitimate, if overblown, fears about COINTELPRO operations provided the excuse to avoid responding to the very real concerns raised in the DO@ bloc statement. To the extent this is the case, the utilization of satire must be considered very carefully. Likewise, given Arpaio's history of manufacturing his own threats, one should be careful about playing into his hands as well. Joe loves to appear persecuted. I say this not to chastise but rather to caution. I really liked the Zack de la Rocha quote, though.

That said, I started off my article with the interview I saw on TV in order to illustrate a point: even though the authors have taken what seems like an extreme position (and despite the fact that they themselves equivocate a bit on what they meant by it), this is only so when viewed from certain angles. From the perspective of the one prisoner above, for instance, it's unlikely that such a proposition seemed so to him.

Indeed popular rage at Arpaio seethes in this state, especially amongst the poor and working class of all races, the overwhelming victims of Joe's attacks. If the banner shocked, you should hear some of the things people say when the camera's not running. More than once I have had someone I just met, from middle aged women in line at the grocery store to young kids in graffiti crews, say much worse about "America's Toughest Sheriff (™)". At the bottom, where we know better than to waste our time voting for our prison warden, Joe is truly hated.

It's only in the bourgeois press and in the polite middle classes that Arpaio is seen as anything other than the class enemy, plain and simple. The downtown yuppies look down on him and mock him as a doddering old coot, much like they mocked that murderer Bush the Younger.

But those of us at the bottom of the class hierarchy know the truth of it. Joe locks up our friends all the time. In a sprawling city without decent public transit, our friends wind up in his tents in the 120 degree summers for DUI. While in there they accumulate vast debts that they struggle to pay on minimum wage. They lose their apartments and their cars. Our friends get nabbed by his deputies for being brown and wind up back in Mexico, even though they left there when they were six months old. Or they get snatched at a protest for daring to form the radical wing of the movement. It's all the same. Amongst our class, we don't mince words when it comes to Arpaio. We know the enemy when we see him and we call him such.

I write this next part not to lecture the authors of the piece, but to make my position clear. I am not a believer in propaganda of the deed as a political strategy. I have said before and I continue to believe that, if the movement is going to focus exclusively on Joe (and this is an important question to ask), then the best possible outcome is for a direct action movement engaging in creative resistance to force him to resign and flee the state in humiliation and defeat. This is the kind of outcome that builds movements and sets them off towards their next challenge. As the "6A" authors themselves point out in their piece, whack Arpaio and there's just another asshole waiting in the wings to replace him. To prevent that, you have to change the politics of Maricopa County. I'll come back to this point.

I don't need to give a history of the Galleani circle to illustrate this point, I hope. Propaganda of the deed might be exciting and sometimes even inspiring, but it is far more often an indication of the defeat of a movement than of success, a symptom of weakness rather than strength. We all get a laugh from history that Spanish anarchist exiles tried to bomb General Franco from the air after WWII. But we also forget that they were "Spanish exiles" for a reason. Franco had won. Also, however popular such sentiments may be, it's important not to write checks that cannot be cashed. This isn't a call to conservatism, but a reminder that, even when we speak obvious truths, escalation does not serve a movement that isn't prepared to deal with the consequences.

As with any rule, there are exceptions (we all cheered when Hitler got it in Inglourious Basterds), but we should be careful when making them. And in general these exceptions come during revolutionary situations when contradictions explode onto the stage. I do not believe we are yet in this kind of situation. And trust me, if we were, and Arpaio had to deal with a real popular movement from below, he'd be running with his tail between his legs back to Berlusconi's Italy for protection. Creating and supporting such a movement is our task as revolutionaries.

Still, I think there is something important that we can learn from the "6A" statement that would be useful for the movement in general. The crux of the argument, which I like, is that despite all our efforts, Arpaio is returned to office time and time again with large majorities backing him. Statewide this political reality is reflected in the supermajorities backing every anti-immigrant initiative on the ballot. He has continued to use the immigrant movement as a foil to bolster his approval among reactionary whites in the county and to solidify them in their obstructionist position to working class unity.

As it is currently oriented, the movement plays into this trap time and time again. The sheriff may seem a useful dupe, but one wonders, as the statement asks us, what all the marches and sign-holding has accomplished, after all, if all it does is make Arpaio stronger? To say nothing of whether it attacks the overall statewide system of white supremacy (which must be our larger goal). Even if we are not advocating political murder (and I am not), is there a point at which it is all right to ask this broader question? If it's only taboo that keeps us from thinking critically about the kind of movement we have, then by all means, let's blaspheme!

But when we ask critical questions about the movement we are answered with silence. The strategy that it is following is the strategy that it will continue to follow, despite (or perhaps because of) its failure. And that's just that. So we are told.

But despite the righteous outrage and condemnation that "6A"'s bold statement has elicited in some quarters, doesn't organizing in opposition to one politician who is essentially immune from electoral challenge, and therefore from popular pressure, eventually beg the very question that so-called responsible moderates now decry? I mean, in some sense, isn't the "6A" statement "baked into the cake" as the movement is now oriented? I think so, and that's a problem. But it's not a problem that anarchists created, even if it was anarchists who made the banner. And it isn't a prisoner problem either, just because a prisoner spoke out on TV. It's all our problem as long as we continue down this path.

This is why we at PCWC, along with our other comrades, advocate for a reorientation of the movement away from focusing on Sheriff Arpaio and towards a broader view. One that incorporates more voices and links more struggles. One that demands free movement and freedom from dislocation. One that challenges the checkpoints. One that challenges the Border Patrol on the rez. One that fights the cameras on the freeways and streets. One that opposes the dislocations of Native peoples for resource extraction. One that sees all the police agencies as complicit in the attack on people of color specifically and the poor and working class generally. One that fights Wackenhut's prisons, the FEMA camps and the tents at the same time. We want a movement that is not afraid to ask questions and, importantly, unafraid to make connections.

One part of that organizing was the DO@ bloc, which was itself a manifestation of much deeper work at coming together with comrades that in many ways stand outside the movement as it now exists but who deserve a respected place in it. For us white anarchists in particular, we have another particular charge that goes beyond critical solidarity with regards to the movements with which we engage. We have a special obligation to reach out and explain to white people why they ought to reconsider their reactionary position with regard to the immigrant movement. And we have a political burden to create situations that reveal this hypocrisy and put white people in political predicaments where they must choose a side. Which is it? Solidarity or reaction? Getting white people to answer that question, that's our task and one that PCWC takes very seriously. Think about contradictions in the white working class and push on them. See what happens.

It speaks volumes that, despite the extensive popular hatred of Joe, the immigrant movement has not been able to tap into it. Indeed, it appears afraid of it. With the exception of the first few popular explosions and megamarchas, a popular movement against Arpaio and the broader attack on movement has not manifested. In fact, the risings in the early days were much more broadly aimed than at one measly county cop. So what happened? Where did everybody go, and why? Should we be afraid of these questions, too?

Since those early days, many people with legitimate reason to oppose him politically from the poor and working class have not joined in. In essence, the migrant movement has failed to mobilize a popular movement against Arpaio. Also, white anarchists have failed to mobilize white people. We mobilize ourselves just fine, no doubt. But too often anarchists are so disgusted with the white communities that we left or opposed, that we are loathe to engage with them. The problem is, this only adds to the climate that leaves the migrant movement reaching out now to hypocritical politicians, aging pop stars and President-Saviors to rescue it. Lacking a popular movement, it doesn't matter how Arpaio leaves the scene, someone else just as bad will surely take his place, even if they are less ostentatious in how they do it.

Likewise, the movement is unable to create a dialog that goes beyond just one person to challenge the entrenched system of white supremacy throughout the state. It is afraid to call out local police forces, preferring to maintain the illusion that one cop shop is worse than the others, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary. Organizers work with Phoenix PD even as the agency moves steadily ahead towards turning every beat cop into an ICE agent. The same with Chandler. Look at where the alliance with Mesa's Gascón got everybody.

The politicians that flirt with the movement are likewise useless. One thinks it's okay to dislocate Indigenous peoples from their homes for the freeway, and to shift all the pollution and resulting health issues that come with it onto the reservation. And another denounces anti-Arpaio protesters with his mouth while taking money from the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association with his hands. And on and on.

This is a failed strategy.

And while a bullet in this situation doesn't solve it either, we ought to be thinking hard about what would. Internally, in my opinion, this process begins with addressing the concerns of the DO@ bloc. On that basis we can heal wounds and build a unified movement that can discuss strategy and tactics in a democratic fashion. With regards to the anarchist movement, it must be on us to create the kind of situations and manifestations that bring white people around to the importance of solidarity. From there we can start to think about victory.

That's the sound of history repeating: the poll tax riots and the January 16th migrant march

Watching the short video (posted below) of the storied Poll Tax rebellion in the UK got me thinking about the current political climate we face in the wake of the police attack on the DOA contingent a couple of weeks back. As I viewed the video, I couldn't help but draw comparisons between the attacks that they faced there, and what we've seen here from movement leaders, politicians, the authorities, the alternative press, and the mainstream press. While there are many differences between the attack at the Anti-Arpaio march, and the massive movement against the Poll Tax, which culminated in the popular insurrection in London, it is worth noting how the many voices of power find harmony when attacking those who make demands beyond reform.

It's worth watching the video, which is a compilation of footage and interviews following the London riot, the parallels are striking, most notable are the denunciations that come from the media and liberals. Indeed, about a minute in there is a wonderful interview with a spokesperson from Class War, who really sums up exactly the position that so many people here have been struggling to articulate following the hub bub on the 16th.



Continuing on that note, John from the Haymarket Squares (who have provided the movement with so many great anthems) has posted up a great new song breaking down what happened and calling out the leadership of the migrant movement for tossing the anarchists aside the moment things got the least bit uncomfortable for them. In his song he has a great line which really summarizes the crux of the contradiction, especially given how much work and support the anarchists have given the migrant movement in a time when allies and solidarity from people -- especially white people -- outside that community have been limited, to say the least.

"Cheers for marching with us in solidarity, havin the guts to hold your ground against wreckless authority
Oh, we won't stand up to the P.P.D., but we needed a scapegoat, thanks for the help, now it's under the bus you go."

He follows this up later with another great bit of analysis:

We're gunna turn our backs, when you're under the horses hoofs
With the pepper spray still blinding you, we're gunna feed you to the wolves
Even though those cops have never been friends to us,
thanks for the help, now we're throwing you under the bus

Solid analysis and just the kind of thing movements need. Word up to John for hitting the nail on the head.



The thing to realize about both situations, the reaction to the January 16th police attack and the history of the Poll Tax riots, is that such things are not random. They do not result because of bad personalities, bad cops or bad politicians. The come from the fact that anarchists and the left want different things, even when we may share some short term goals, such as defending migrants from attack by the state or abolishing a regressive, unfair tax. That as much as liberals and others on the left will pretend that we're on the same side, deep down that is only true to a limited degree.

Indeed, perhaps the most common refrain from the mouths of liberals and leftists is that "we're all on the same side" or, "we all want the same thing". As I said, this may be true to some limited extent with short term goals. But these kinds of crises reveal a contradiction that always lies beneath the surface whenever the left and anarchists interact, especially when leaders are involved. This contradiction is that we demand changes far beyond what they are willing to ask for (or can even conceive), and that our demands (and those of the base of their own movement, generally) necessarily force them to reveal themselves as the managers of movements.

Consider the point raised in the Poll Tax video. The spokesperson for Class War points to a fundamental difference between themselves and the so-called organizers of the poll tax protest. It's central to anarchist organizing that we don't believe that movements need leaders in the strict sense. Our class can organize itself and decide for itself what to do. That puts us at least potentially at odds with every movement politician, whoever they are, and in whatever movement. Not at all times, but the groundwork is there for it to emerge at any time.

The more this tension is understood going into and participating in movements, the better off we will be, because we will be able to anticipate such reactions. Those of us who participated in the anti-war movement, or the anti-globalization movement, for instance, saw the same dynamic play out. Anarchists are often welcomed at various times because there is a need for dedicated people, but with time, the political aspirations of movement politicians, or the political pressure to moderate demands or to appear responsible, puts pressure on this relationship. And, when you're dealing with liberals, while they expect you to moderate your views, they can never enter into a true relationship of solidarity with you -- after all, they cannot make their views more radical in exchange. This is a lesson worth learning from history and these two examples serve perfectly to illustrate it in my view.

Indeed, there is another lesson for us in particular that comes out of our role in the January march, which is that, beyond our general politics as anarchists, the composition of our contingent was a threat as well to various elements in the movement. The alliance between Native youth and anarchists was a stick of dynamite, not just for the police, but also for the leadership.

This is important to remember, and the O'odham Solidarity Across Borders Collective recently put out a statement calling on the migrant movement not to use the police attack as an excuse to ignore the demands made by the bloc. Those demands are legitimate and deserve a response. Addressing these concerns will only make the movement stronger. The question is whether the movement, in particular the leadership, is capable of addressing them. Let's hope so.

As for the continuing fallout from the march, there's some good news to share as well, two of the arrested, Garyn and Claire, have both had their charges "scrapped." Garyn had been charged with "aggravated assault on a police officer and disorderly conduct," Claire was facing "resisting arrest and disorderly conduct." The clearing of these charges makes us glad, however there are still three others facing aggravated assault charges, there should be more information soon on how you can help support them. The five arrested had their names dragged through the mud by the press, now that some charges have been dropped can we count on them to put forth as much effort in clearing their names? I think we know the answer.

Phoenix PD attack protesters at anti-Arpaio March

We couldn't agree with Sal Reza more when he says, "There was provocation by some groups who came here for their own purpose to disrupt a peaceful march." We know he isn't talking about those of us in the Diné, O'odham, anarchist/anti-authoritarian bloc. Not only have we patiently marched in the marches and held the signs for years now, but how in the world could O'odham peoples, native to this land, in any way be considered outsiders? Such an assertion is ridiculous on its face. Indeed, as one of our O'odham comrades from the Diné, O'odham, anarchist/anti-authoritarian bloc sang from the main stage before the march, flanked by two other members of the DO@ bloc, no one seemed eager to denounce them outsiders. Naturally, then, we reject this allegation.

So, who is the outside faction Sal's talking about? In our opinion it must be the Phoenix Police. Unprovoked, a female officer on horseback (who later covered her name on her uniform) charged her horse headlong into the march, colliding with several people and in the process almost running over at least one child in a stroller. After attacking families and protesters, she then whipped out her pepper spray and let loose on the whole crowd, who fled the noxious spew. In the process, children were blasted with pepper spray.

After that, other Phoenix PD officers stormed the crowd, violently attacking marchers, dragging several to the ground and further deploying their chemical weapons from all directions in an attempt to justify their their aggression by nabbing a few people. Dozens were so affected that they were soaked in chemicals, having to strip off clothes to stop the burning. Street medics (not Phoenix Fire Department) and other protesters came to each others' aid. At the end of the melee, out of the more than a hundred that marched together, four of our comrades were in chains and countless others stood bleeding, bruised and momentarily stunned.

Still, shaking it off, we rallied, facing down the cops, until eventually they withdrew. We celebrated and took turns speaking out about what it's like to be under attack by a system that values property and power over people.

Indeed, during the entire march the Phoenix police had been provoking marchers. Riding bikes and golf carts into people. Pushing and shoving. For what? To keep one northbound lane open? Rather than assaulting people expressing their legitimate desires to see an end to oppression, why not shut down the street? Cops do traffic control all the time. What's wrong with PPD? Why, for instance, is it somehow possible for Tempe PD to shut down Tempe streets tomorrow for the corporate schlock that is "PF Chang's Rock n' Roll Marathon" tomorrow but not for PPD to close off a few streets so that people can assemble without threat of attack? Truly a backwards system indeed!

The police have so far put forward several different explanations for what happened, all of which contradict each other. On one channel they say that they were breaking up a fight. On another they say that people were throwing bottles. And on and on. What'll it be in five minutes, we wonder? The contradictory stories ought to be your first clue that what they're claiming happened didn't in fact happen. No surprise that the media swallowed it. But if we know they're lying, we have to wonder why anyone else would defend their actions?

Did people fight back against the police assault. We don't know because our eyes were full of pepper spray, but we wouldn't begrudge them if they did. To be charged into by a twelve hundred pound horse, while attacked by thugs using chemical weapons necessarily evokes the instinct to fight back, especially when your enemy is so vile as to assault children. Police demand the impossible from people. They expect you to allow them to attack you while at the same time demanding that you suppress your gut, human tendency to defend yourself. There is nothing "peaceful" in that relationship.

That sort of power relation is one that condemns those who resist while exonerating the violence of those from above. It reflects the current distribution of power -- a distribution we want to change drastically. This is as unnatural as fighting power without taking action. Movements, like people, have a right to self-defense. For us, that has to be in the form of direct action and civil disobedience against the system. It must be made not to work unless our demands are met. No more mediation through shady politicians. No more appealing to power through moral arguments. We can take our futures into our own hands, directly.

Still, we're not surprised that the police attacked. While it seems the leaders of the movement are eager to make excuses for police who attack children, we know that what we saw today is but a glimpse of what the cops do everyday. We see it with our own eyes. They are the outside, alien force that first and foremost defends white supremacy and capitalism. How can someone say they are organizing a "peaceful march" when they work with such sadists? Anyone who was at the point in the march where the attack took place obviously recognizes that the only physical threat to the march was from the police. No one in the march was at any time under threat from anyone in the march. Understand that and you also understand that naturally the cops were going to attack the march eventually, especially considering the militaristic fashion in which they deployed. Phoenix PD deports more migrants than Sheriff Joe and yet we are told that we ought to give them a pass so that we can focus on that clown Arpaio? We saw today just how foolish that strategy is.

In our eyes, this is but a symptom of the failure of the strategy being pursued by the movement as it is. White supremacy in Arizona goes far beyond one ancient sheriff in one county. Ballot measures attacking people of color will almost certainly pass in Arizona yet again this year with 70 or 80 percent margins. Is this Sheriff Joe's fault? Obviously not. But marches against Joe won't stop that.

We need a broader movement with a critique beyond Joe so that we can challenge the whole problem -- one that stretches from Tohono O'odham land down south to the land of the Diné up north. And everywhere in between. And we need to break from this mode of organizing that can only deliver more oppression and more violence down on our heads. No more politicians. No more working with cops. Look what it brings.

This is why we supported the call for the Diné, O'odham, anarchist/anti-authoritarian bloc. For someone to say now when it is inconvenient that we are an outside force is to replicate the marginalization that for centuries has dominated the discourse around land and movement in this region. But PCWC's native comrades didn't come from outside. They were always here. And we stand with them.