This Saturday at Occupy Phoenix, a discussion on "Defending Self-Defense from Militant Nonviolence"

 "I am not the 99%! I am me, you are you. In different ways the rulers of this society have screwed us over. Each of us, in different ways, autonomously (but perhaps interweaving what we do), have to respond. To hell with moralistic condemnations of other people's choices in this regard. To hell with imposed guidelines and programs. That guarantees a "movement" that cannot move!"
-Apio


As seen last night in Oakland and Atlanta, police agencies continue to clamp down on the surge of anti-capitalist, anti-bank, and anti-corporate protests around the country, and Phoenix has been no exception.  Phoenix police made dozens of arrests during the first night of Occupy Phoenix, as people sat down in the park after it closed at 10 PM and refused to leave.  Many of those arrested chanted that they "love the police" and reaffirmed their commitment to non-violence, while riot cops methodically pulled them behind their lines. Notably, one person was grabbed by her head and yanked behind the police line, while another person reported that he received a light beating after he was snatched. Still loving the police?

Anyone in the park who shouted back at the police advance, who had the nerve to challenge the state's attack on a peaceful gathering, was labeled as being "violent", or accused of trying to "provoke the police" by some of the "non-violent" protesters.

There's already a couple of other posts on here in the last few weeks about the role of the police as antagonists to social movements amidst all the cop loving going on, as well as the dead end of a non-violent movement that polices anyone who oppose the presence of armed white supremacists and neo-nazis at Occupy Phoenix.  Furthermore there have been a number of different groups and individuals advocating for some type of "peace police" that will marginalize and even physically isolate any person(s) who may be engaging in "violent" behavior, like defending oneself from a physical attack, or yelling at a cop who is being violent towards others. The Occupy Phoenix encampment will not survive if militant non-violent advocates continue to insist on a "head down" mentality that shames individual or collective self defense, the politicians, cops, and/or nazis will make sure of that.

In addition to some of the problems with the organized non-violence presence, there is also a popular, if factually inaccurate, narrative of non-violent movements (Gandhi, MLK, the civil rights movement) that says they were victorious simply because of the virtuousness of their non-violence.  This one sided understanding of social change throws history and facts out the window in favor of a mythologized interpretation of struggle, one that ignores any context that becomes inconvenient or clashes with the dogma of non-violent protest in the United States.

So, with all the contention over the question of tactics in this current struggle, I was happy to see that a friend of PCWC has organized an event for this weekend to challenge the dogmatism of militant non-violence, and to invite attendees to explore the histories of direct action, movement self defense, and diversity of tactics through a public discussion.  This event will take place this coming Saturday from 2-5 PM, at the Occupy Phoenix camp at Cesar Chavez Plaza (201 W. Washington Street) in downtown Phoenix, I encourage all interested to attend.  The summary for the event is reproduced below:


"Defending Self-Defense from Militant Nonviolence"

From day one of Occupy Phoenix it has been made clear that Kingian nonviolence is the acceptable means of protest, demonstration and direct action.

Nonviolence is a tactic, but it is one of many. It is important to remember that those who defend self-defense as a tactic are likewise not discounting the efficacy of nonviolence.

The purpose of this teach-in is to give a historical account of self-defense and direct action from the abolitionist movement and the Civil Rights era through to the present day.

It would also be extremely important to listen to our Native brothers and sisters, whose land we continue to live upon, on their ongoing struggles against U.S. state oppression and the tactics they employ.

It is also for the purpose of pointing out what Joel Olson has recently described as the "left colorblindness" of the Occupy movement in pointing out the historically different relations that people of color have had with the state and with the police. It seems easy to dismiss self-defense as a tactic when the community you are a part of has never felt oppressive state violence through exclusionary legislation, racial targeting, criminalization, slavery, prison and the dispossession of land.

Also, it is a hope that a discussion regarding the protection of private property rights above human values under nonviolence principles can occur.

	Saturday, October 29 · 2:00pm - 5:00pm
	Cesar Chavez Plaza 201 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ

Things to think about regarding Saturday's anti-NSM action.

As Saturday's creative and diverse response to the National Socialist Movement's pathetic racist rally draws closer, I thought I'd do a short "inside baseball" post for anarchists and anti-authoritarians covering some of my thoughts on what is to come as well as to suggest some video for review from past anti-fascist formations in England.

Above I have posted above the first part of a five part documentary about the group Anti-Fascist Action, which in England in the 80's and 90's fought back Nazi attempts to take over the punk scene and stood up in defense of themselves, foreigners and people of color. The video does a really good job showing the various ways they challenged the boneheads, talking about what worked and what didn't, as well as showing how the fascists tried to exert their influence and build their power.

There are some problems with anti-fascism as a political orientation, however, that deserve pointing out. This is not to say that fascists should not be opposed! They should be. The important thing to look out for is to prevent the formation of common or popular fronts. Authoritarian leftists often try to use the cover of anti-fascism to try to neutralize libertarian organizing and to impose their own sad Stalinoid politics on movements, seeking to consolidate and centralize them and, in the end, to destroy their revolutionary or insurrectionary potential.

In a sense, even though it's a bit of a sequel, it's might be helpful to look at Saturday's event as a one off. That is, relations between people and groups that go beyond already existing affinity at the action should be thought of as autonomous relations that are not permanent or binding but exist temporarily at the event. These relations can be informative and supportive, and they can build trust. But while people may have similar short-term goals, this should not be mistaken for long-term unity. True, we want unity against the NSM in that everyone there on Saturday stands against them, but we must watch those who would seek to coalesce the forces of resistance under their banner or to seek to thrust their face in front of the media's cameras.

Generally those kinds of demands come from authoritarians who want unity on their own narrow terms, and under their firm control. Think of the RCP, always there with the "leadership we need" when we don't need it! We have faith in the creativity and self-activity of people, not in self-appointed leaders. So, we must maintain our autonomy. Liberals and leftists and anarchists (and even right libertarians and constitutionalists if last year is any indicator) may come together for this action, and there is every reason to believe that we will complement each others' tactics like we did before, but this does not mean we give up our own politics or longer term goals. We make progress when we understand and respect each others' differences as well as our similarities, not when we form permanent alliances, become superficially more like each other or sublimate our politics to those of others.

And, as for tactics, I think we should be prepared to defend the idea of a diversity of tactics. This is not to say that we advocate or demand any particular response to the NSM, just that we should reject the tendency of some people, activists and leftists in particular but not limited to them, to generalize and impose onto others their own personal choices in terms of how best to oppose the fascists. Let's face it, the liberal activist generally has a very limited experience with the tools in the resistance toolbox, so there's no reason why they ought to be telling anyone what to do. Tactics are by nature situational, so there is no sense permitting ideology to ossify resistance into certain pre-determined ideological forms.

So be vigilant for the activist! Also, be prepared for the fact that no matter what anarchists do or do not do, or what individual anarchists do or do not do, we will likely be denounced by everyone with authority or seeking authority. That's just par for the course. And didn't many of them embarrassingly denounce us before the Inglourious Basterds Bloc last year? I sure haven't forgotten. Look for them this time. As those who refuse to be governed, we anarchists and anti-authoritarians are always frowned upon by those who seek to govern, whether they be activists, media, police or government. These people are not our audience, so don't worry about them.

See ya on Saturday! Fuck the NSM!

Defending diversity of tactics in Vancouver

Below I have linked the first part of a panel discussion co-hosted by rabble.ca and Working TV that took place Saturday February 20 in Vancouver on diversity of tactics following the anti-Olympics actions. This question is one that we in Phoenix are familiar with and the panelist defending the black bloc in this case, Harsha Walia, does the best job that I've seen yet in breaking down the accusations leveled at the bloc. I think there's a lot of good stuff here and I appreciate the way she has organized the ideas in her presentation. Enjoy!

Click here to see the rest of the discussion.