I'll preface my comments by conextualizing my perspective: I'm a Black

anarchist, born and raised in LA, I'm 29, and I'm male. I've never been a

punk. I'm an anarchist cuz I'm against all forms of status, prestige, and

illegitimate authority, and I work to build a society that shows people

that self-worth, self-realization, and joy in life are not zero-sum

quantities that depend on competition within hierarchies. I grew up poor

on welfare, but I've attended schools with middle-class and wealthy folks

on the East coast. As an adult, I've lived a couple of years abroad,

mostly in Asia and in South America. I work as a community organizer, and

am damn happy and lucky to get paid to do meaningful work and not be a

stone-cold corporate slave. I see my long-term work as all about building

community-based alternative institutions and less about mass mobes.

>From what I can tell, anarchists that are outright enraged by DAN are

precisely the ones who had no role in organizing with DAN or D2K for the

demos...There's a tendency for people, anarchists included, to get stuck in

an attitude of 'tribalism', where people find it much easier to categorize

and demonize people they don't know than engage them, dialogue with them,

get to know them. There's a tendency for people to have this absolutist

'US' vs. 'THEM' mentality that really is at the socio-psychological roots of

nationalism and the herd-mentality. It'd be nice to see more so-called

anarchists do a little self-analysis on this tip. Without such an

awareness, they really do the goals of anarchism a disservice. (Yeah, I know

i'm speaking from my own perspecitve of what anarchism means. But that's

automatic, since I can't speak from anybody else's perspective.) I was on a

panel at the anarchist conference and one of the panelists had a very

vehement attitude that dismissed DAN out-of-hand as 'reformist' and 'full of

paid activists flying around the country from action to action'. What was

funny is nothing she said seemed grounded in any experience. It was

straight vitriol and vilification. Although what she said didn't resonate

with everyone gathered in the crowded session, it resonated with enough

folks there that it made me feel kinda depressed about the level of

ignorance and the sense of almost apocalyptic isolationism in the anarchist

scene. (There's an almost religious fervor folks get when they're caught up

in the idea that everyone who's not exactly like them is out to get them or

is in cahoots with THE ENEMY...God, the material is rich for further

analysis of mass-psychology amongst people who see themselves as

fundamentally alienated from society and yet replicate many of the same

patterns in terms of herd-mentality and simplistic, reductionist

thinking...)

Having said this is not to say that there weren't dynamics within DAN that

were problematic. There were. There was a tendency among SOME local

organizers to have an almost obsessive worry about things getting out of

hand 'once all the out-of-town hordes show up'. Some degree of concern

seems justified: the concern that there'd be a lot of white folks coming

into town who didn't have any analysis of white-supremacy and racism as it

affects the activist scene, while a good number of the local DAN organizers

where people of color and whites used to working in consciously multiracial

anti-white supremacist settings. DAN organizers wanted to make a conscious

effort to begin to address the ways in which other recent mobilizations were

so dominated by white activists. (This is an issue of long-term concern

that, partially thanks to the efforts of DAN-LA, has begun to be addressed

on many fronts, e.g. the inclusion for the first time of discussions at the

Ruckus Camp about white-supremacy and how the movement(s) can address it,

'anti-racism for white folks' workshops at the convergence center...) There

was also a tendency among SOME local organizers to obsess about making sure

that meetings went off in a way that wasn't derailable. (A not unheard-of

concern among any organizer dealing with making meetings happen in settings

where all sorts of folks, from provocateurs to psycho-sectarians to random

wingnuts may and do appear.) Although I didn't attend later spokescouncil

meetings (I was too busy doing other logistical work), I did attend early

(before 8/14) meetings before a lot of affinity groups had formed. There

were some occasions where process felt rushed through in order to get

through an agenda. Another factor in this is that, in LA, we are not all

anarchist--probably about a fourth. (Nor would I want us to be, since from

my perspective as an organizer for the long-term movement, the whole goal is

to draw in and work with people who aren't already just like me.

Transformation happens through working and struggling together across

differences.) Many of the organizers were new to the spokescouncil and

affinity group model, and it was an important learning process for them.

Another factor in the way the actions played out in LA was that early on

DAN-LA decided to focus its organizing resources on actions led by local

community groups and organizers. (The Seattle-WTO strategy of shutting down

the whole thing was ruled out early on as a goal.) So, when out-of-town

folks showed up a couple of days before the actions, instead of it being

like, 'Okay. Here's a map of Downtown LA. Here's a map of the Staples

Center. Go to it!' it would be: 'Okay, you can do what you want. But the

actions that DAN-LA has decided to focus the bulk of its resources

(communications, media, meeting space, etc.) on are the following...Oh, and

one other thing: if you plan on participating in an action organized by a

local group, please respect their particlar action plans...'

Although I originally thought the local groups would come up with very

elaborate, very confrontational action plans, many settled on more tame,

more controlled types of actions, without the kind of excitement one would

see in, say, a reclaim the streets type of action. But hey, that was their

prerogative. What some local groups planned or didn't plan, however, didn't

stop some other (mostly local) activists from doing a very powerful and

creative banner-hang right across the street from the Staples Center. I'm

tired of activists whining about what others aren't willing to do, and how

this oppresses them. I say to them: Fuckin' DIY, asshole, and recognize

that it's different strokes for different folks.

Now, one of the tendencies amongst SOME DAN organizers was to assume that

anarchists coming to town would mean a movement that would be even whiter

than otherwise and that allowing the North American Anarchist Conference

(NAAC) to share the space with the convergence center would help precipitate

a police-shutdown of the center. At the critical meeting where the question

of allowing the NAAC to use the convergence center for workshops was being

discussed (the NAAC organizers needed to know right away cuz of time

constraints), one idiotically obstinate and misinformed but respected local

organizer (white, late 20s, male) said 'If the NAAC uses the convergence

space, the space will feel even less inviting to local activists of color

[because of the white crusty-punk feel of it all that was prevalent in

Seattle]'. I informed them all that, of the 7 people of color in that

particular meeting, 4 of us where anarchists. So the idea that the

anarchist scene is whiter than the general activist scene is wrong. The

non-anarchist then took the tack that the fact that John Zerzan was on the

list of guest speakers at the NAAC would give the cops an excuse to shut it

down. (Zerzan's a primitivist who apparently is noted for singing the

virtues of fucking shit up; he was on the panel with me at the NAAC and said

some annoying things about 'getting beyond Leftism', but I personally

haven't read a lick of his work...I hear he says civilization is the root of

all evil...) Anyway, after some debate, the guy finally decided to play the

asshole and said that, no matter what, he would move to block a decision

allowing the NAAC to use the space. Folks in general were miffed at his

intransigence, and some of us anarchists wanted to continue the discussion,

but it had been a long meeting and most people were damned tired and ready

to go home...

This illustrates how, although so-called anarchists caught-up in the throes

of tribalistic 'US' vs. 'THEM' herd-thinking may cry out, 'See! DAN wouldn't

let the NAAC use the space. DAN must be against us!' the actually reality of

DAN's decision around the NAAC is more complex, and the actual reality of

DAN is more complex.

Now, as far as all the other claims of police collaboration or moving to

quell Black Bloquites on the part of DAN-LA, I say: Bullshit. I don't have

any simpler way to put it. Although I can't account for what individuals in

groups like the ISO tried or didn't try to pull at the march to the jail (I

wasn't there), I know there was no DAN-LA effort to do anything to stop

Black Bloquites. The most organized thing that happened was a dialogue,

held the weekend before the DNC, where a bunch of folks from DAN-LA and the

convergence space, a bunch of folks who were participants at the NAAC--many

Black Bloquites, and random other activists got together to discuss the

tactical value of property destruction in the kinds of activities that had

already been planned by local groups. It was a very interesting discussion,

with around 80-100 folks present. It was facilitated by a Eugene anarchist

named Tim who was doing a lot to help out with logistics at the convergence

center. Although at the outset it was established that no one in the room

had the position that there was something morally wrong with property

destruction (and this was always the DAN-LA position), it seemed that, when

some people would question the tactical value of certain kinds of property

destruction in the context of, say, permitted marches or rallies, or

question the way certain property-destruction tactics might create

sensationalist media coverage that pulled attention from the issues locals

were organizing around, the people defending property destruction wanted to

take it to the level of principle and claim that the opposition was being

reformist or counter-revolutionary. (I swear, there's a way in which the

fetishization of or self-identification with certain tactics becomes

tantamount to raising those tactics to the level of unquestionable religious

rituals or sacraments. More material for further analysis...)

I do know that, on Monday at the rally organized by D2K (not DAN), when the

BBites at the fence were involved in escalating tensions with the police on

the other side (throwing plastic bottles et al., getting pepper-sprayed, et

al.), the rally security folks (all a bunch of non-sectarian activists

themselves) did go over and try to deesacalate the situation. They were

worried that things would get out of hand and that thousands of people who

didn't know what was going on, who just came for the rally or to hear Rage

Against the Machine or Ozomatli would be put at risk of police violence for

something they had no say over. What specifically happened, I don't know.

I'm told the spread-thin security teams were drawn away from the fence when

the cops stole our puppets on the other side of the rally, and then the

fence tensions between BBites and police escalated soon after, justifying

(for the police) the shut-down of the rally...It coulda led to a riot, and

maybe that woulda been interesting and empowering and consciosuness-raising

for some folks, and maybe it woulda been great for media coverage...but then

again, maybe it woulda fucked over a lotta people who weren't part of any of

the organizing and thought they were just coming to enjoy some music...Maybe

some of the people woulda been trampled over as folks were trying to escape

the gas...I think more-militant-than-thou folks should organize their own

rallies instead of pulling shit at rallies organized by others. Just make

sure the folks they invite understand that there may be a riot cuz people

intend to provoke police by throwing bottles at them.

D-I-fuckin'-Y.

For Liberation Everyday,

Shawn McDougal



SMcdougal@afsc.org.

Shawn,

As a local LA area activist, newly embracing the anarchist movement, I appreciate your perspective and am enthused about joining with others for the liberation of the whole community of life.

However, when reading your article I cringed at your use of the term "tribalism", twice, to describe the "attitude we get stuck in"... "where people find it much easier to categorize and demonize people they don't know than engage them, dialogue with them, get to know them." It seems to me, from what I know of the history of authentic tribal people, you might rethink your use of that term. The historical records show that the tribal people of the new world did embrace the imperialists... at first. Then of course, they learned to fear them. The 500+ tribal cultures of north America, had extensive trading systems and sharing of cultures, which could not have existed under your definition of "tribalism". The tribal people of the world, including the U'wa and the Dineh for whom we marched, are living examples of ancient anarchy attempting to hold onto its freedom, are they not? You may be correct in your use of the term as used by our imperialist educational system, but as an anarchist "against all forms of status, prestige, and illegitimate authority", shouldn't you cringe, as I do, when reading or hearing that term used in that manner? I know it's just one word, but I thought I'd try out a bit of my neo-anarchistic fire on it. :-) If I can burn a word, I might find it easier to burn a flag. Here are a few exerpts from a great web site that seem to correlate how anarchism resonates with tribal culture:



http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA1.html

In "Mutual Aid" (and elsewhere) Kropotkin analysed the libertarian aspects of previous societies and noted those that successfully implemented (to some degree) anarchist organisation or aspects of anarchism. This was particularly the case with indigenous peoples, for example most Native American tribes organised themselves in a very anarchistic manner.

Kropotkin recognised this tendency of actual examples of anarchistic ideas to predate the creation of the "official" anarchist movement and argued that:

"From the remotest, stone-age antiquity, men [and women] have realised the evils that resulted from letting some of them acquire personal authority. . . Consequently they developed in the primitive clan, the village community, the medieval guild . . . and finally in the free medieval city, such institutions as enabled them to resist the encroachments upon their life and fortunes both of those strangers who conquered them, and those clansmen of their own who endeavoured to establish their personal authority." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, pp. 158-9]

Kropotkin placed the struggle of working class people (from which modern anarchism sprung) on par with these older forms of popular organisation. He argued that "the labour combinations. . . were an outcome of the same popular resistance to the growing power of the few -- the capitalists in this case" as were the clan, the village community and so on, as were "the strikingly independent, freely federated activity of the 'Sections' of Paris and all great cities and many small 'Communes' during the French Revolution" in 1793. [Op. Cit., p. 159]

Thus, while anarchism as a political theory is an expression of working class struggle and self-activity against capitalism and the modern state, the ideas of anarchism have continually expressed themselves in action throughout human existence. Most indigenous peoples in North America and elsewhere, for example, practised anarchism for thousands of years before anarchism as a specific political theory existed.

Anarchism can be about working class struggle against capitalism -- but that also describes Communism. What anarchism is, at its core, is about the absence of government, and by extension, hierarchy -- institutional domination of one being over another.

It's not necessarily against money or even the objectification of labor. It's not necessarily about maximising freedom. It's not necessarily against technology. It's not all about DIY.