This is why.

A cop speared me from one side of the bloc and pushed me all the way to the opposite side of the bloc. So, 2 pigs pushed 1 person through 200 people in black watched and the ones in black seemingly were unwilling to take the small risk of grabbing on to me and keeping me from being arrested.

There was one person that grabbed onto me in attempts to de-arrest me, she was also arrested.

On a good note though, after my release I talked to some people and 3 out of 4 people said that after that people woke up and even chanted things like, “if someone grabs you, grab them back!”.

So, although I feel sort of like a guinea pig, I’m glad that something was learned (there was apparently a lot of talk of de-arresting in the de-briefing too).

I feel that the same goes for every other topic that came up about the march. The bottom line is that shit was learned and they’ll be ready next time.

But through this entire happening the image of police being an insurmountable force with super humyn strength completely shattered.
This cop was big and fat just like the rest but was hardly stronger then me. It was only when another cop latched on that I felt like I wasn’t in control.

As far as the organizers go, I had the opportunity to speak with them and find out the reasons why they didn’t cooperate with no war, no warming. It was because of their top down organizing and the fact that they have no connection (or will to connect) with the lower class that founds this movement.
They’ve tried organizing with them in the past and I guess the October rebellion group just got shit on by these dudes.

I feel like they could have done better on a lot of different fronts, but this one is one I can kind of feel for them on.

But fuck, I would say it was one hell of a night.
I feel like we’ve definitely set the stage for the DNC and RNC.

P.S. DC HOLDING CENTERS ARE COLD, DAMP, AND HAS THE WORST GRAFFITTI I’VE EVER SEEN. WHEN IN DC, GO TO GREAT LENGTHS TO STAY OUT OF THE HOLDING CENTERS!

Either way, the issues xdx has and their response (turning inward and developing one’s self) is a very common one happening in anarchist circles here in Denver. Many comrades are conflicted over the DNC and how it will help or harm anarchist work.

I personally see self-work, community organizing and (mass) protest as all very essential and in many ways interlocked. The coming DNC has given many of us anarchists here the impetus to start getting our shit together more. Go out and do all those things we’ve been meaning to do for so long…make a rad indymedia group that will outlast the convention, firm up current coalitions and forge new ones, improve our own intra-anarchist communication and action, and establish links with other radicals outside our city.

Already I have made great connections with people that stand on their own, the DNC was the spark, now they’re there. People forget that much of the hard work that goes into these events continue on long after the streets are cleared.

This comment is long so I’ll just end by briefly saying that I am really encouraged and inspired by the re-emergence of more militant tactics accompanied by some really thoughtful analysis afterwards. Our brains are raging here in Denver trying to figure out this DNC thing, it’s nice to see others are doing the same across the country.

I don’t know any of you but I love you all. Thanks for Being.

Excuse my soy cheese…

Messaging is another tough question. It’s no good to be out in the street as foot soldiers looking only to serve a Message, whose actions and experiences are meaningless except as advertising for it. At the same time, if we’re seeking new relationships, new dynamics with others, it’s probably counterproductive to remain willfully incomprehensible to those around us. The skaters may indeed join in because they’ve always wanted to trash their neighborhood, and perhaps that in itself is legitimate, but there are plenty of others–some of them fascists, for example–who would gladly get involved in trashing for its own sake too. What separates our trashing from theirs? If the medium is the message–destroy, destroy, destroy and no more than that–we might find ourselves with the wrong bedfellows (Kristallnacht, anyone?). One purpose of messaging is to make it clear exactly what currents we’re trying to nurture.

It doesn’t all the time. To compare criticizing your enemy where no dialog is occurring to criticizing your ally in a place that exists solely for dialog (i.e. this comment section) is dishonest, and is the kind of internet-arguing that is not welcome here. You should be less worried about proving you are ‘right’ and more concerned with adding value to this discussion. We have high standards here, and we aren’t interested in offering a soapbox for individuals, but instead in offering a platform for people to discuss ideas and collaborate together. It is essential for all criticism here to be constructive—if you disagree, we don’t need to hear about it, just leave (there are plenty of places on the internet for you to engage in heated, pointless, destructive arguments); on the other hand, if you want to to engage in a constructive conversation, please stay.

I also don’t understand why criticism needs be “constructive” all the time. After all, much of the anarchist conversation with/criticism of neo-liberal capitalism is not ‘constructive’ at all. Plus, being ‘constructive’ (inasmuch as we’re talking about strategy & tactics) prioritizes action, any action, over what might actually be worthwhile… to paraphrase a zine I just read, it responds to the urgency of the situation with urgent action. I guess I see xdx’s position as ‘loyal opposition’ within our own ranks, although I think the reaction to his comments is largely indicative of how the contemporary N.A. anarchist movement handles dissent within. There’s no reason this thread must only contain one discussion.

To get down to the “practical” aspect then, I’ve had on my mind the question of “messaging,” which seems to always come up after some adventurist outburst. There was some talk about this after the parade at this year’s CI. convergence, too. I think in these situations messaging is of secondary importance, especially if the action is something that is supposed to speak for itself. On the one hand, folks said they were trashing Georgetown b/c it was a ‘bastion of power’ or whatever, but on the other then folks are saying there should be some sort of outreach. I think it’s kind of crazy to say “We’re gonna come in to your neighborhood and trash the place, here are some good ideas to think about.” The attitude of the march – Destroy Georgetown – pretty much speaks for itself, and skateboarders aside, I’d wonder why you’d think people living/shopping in that neighborhood would be receptive to whatever message would be given out.

At anti-war breakaway marches or other mostly symbolic stand-around kinda protests, of course ‘messaging’ is important, it’s basically the only reason anyone is out there in the first place, to spread ideas. But for something really aggressive and confrontational, with the explicit purpose of destruction, the medium is the message.

“I would like to see the coalitions and organizations involved in counter-summit demonstrations dissolved and pro-revolutionaries, if they must direct their activity ’strategically’, focus their attack on the Left, especially SDS where ‘anarchists’ rub shoulders with Maoists or other groupings that push anti-imperialism, support of the unions, and so on.”

A final thought before leaving this discussion, as a few people suggested I do: when you say that repression of activists is less when Left governments are in power – and this is true, to a point (extremist elements are oftentimes repressed just as harshly) – why is this? Perhaps because Left governments are able to diffuse or integrate activism and thus have no need to attack it with outright repression? This seems to me to be of very high practical importance when thinking about confronting the State in a large street event or wherever else.

“Summit protests … play right into the hands of capital and are merely choreographed dances “on the stage of (eventual) renunciation”, involve unspoken/invisible hierarchies, and create an atmosphere of moralism/leftism. They leave people either devastated and burned out or with a false sense of agency, even when successful on their own terms.”

Believing this, he has every reason to interfere unconstructively with any more specific discussion of how to improve on DA tactics for mass mobilizations. If we try to talk about how to be safer in the streets, he’s going to see it as his job do his best to shut the discussion down. There’s an unbridgeable gulf.

For those of us who feel there is some potential in mass actions, I think it probably makes the most sense to use this space to speak about the specific issues brought up in the original article, and use other spaces to discuss the worth or worthlessness of the “summit protest” model. I’m interested in that discussion as well, but if he’s the only one who thinks that’s the best possible use for this space, the rest of us shouldn’t thoughtlessly switch focus against our own intentions and interests.

In contradiction to the suggestion I just made, I can’t resist saying that it’s difficult to imagine how someone who has had so much different (dare I say so much less!!) experience with mass actions than I have could possibly make a persuasive case to me for any one of the assertions above. I’ve read some of the same authors xdx is influenced by on this issue and I think it’s a bunch of drivel. But if others here want to back up to discuss whether mass mobilizations “play into the hands of capital” and involve “unspoken/invisible hierarchies” and so on any more so than, say, bickering on message boards, perhaps we could have another thread on that subject.

My guess is that that subject is of interest only to a small minority of readers here.

when you criticize someone on a message board in response to an essay they have written with very little to offer beyond “what you’re doing is ineffective”, it makes it very hard for one to understand what point, if any, you are trying to make.

attacking others’ efforts without offering an alternative has yet to produce results from my count.

How is holding back criticism a way to “support” someone?

Shouldn’t we be challenging and engaging with each other, rather than constantly patting each other on the back?

At the end of the day, some activities – like summit protests – play right into the hands of capital and are merely choreographed dances “on the stage of (eventual) renunciation”, involve unspoken/invisible hierarchies, and create an atmosphere of moralism/leftism. They leave people either devastated and burned out or with a false sense of agency, even when successful on their own terms. Why would I support such endeavors?

the problem is that critiques that are mere criticism, offering no alternatives, many times only further divide the activist community. we need to embrace the diversity of tactics—what works for one person will not work for everyone. when you support others, you’ll often find that they’ll support your endeavors as well—whether or not you both completely agree with each others’ strategies. that’s what mutual aid means to me, and without it, we have little chance of winning “The War” as you put it.

if you don’t find that mass mobilizations are effective, by all means do what works for you. and please don’t hesitate to share your projects and ideas—that’s the only way we have a shot at changing things.

False optimism and rose-colored goggles (no matter how shatterproof) pose more of a danger than police repression to widening class struggle, as the emphasis becomes “building a movement” rather than building genuine human community and winning the war.

henro—i don’t think you’ll hear much argument here that the left and right are both our enemies. i think the point you are responding to was a tactical reference, stating that police repression is generally more mild when the “left” holds office—which is something we should be aware of and take into consideration when planning our strategies.