Political struggle and protest tactics

The potential political goals of a successful direct action could, simply as an example, be the successful interruption or cancellation of an event that we recognize as a way for the rich to oppress us.

Whether it is the global economic power structure, the current “political process,” or the corporate-controlled media, when they get together to attempt to control us and limit our ability to defend ourselves, we have the right to be there and stop it.

The “rules of this process” are designed to keep our message palatable and the risk from our dissent minimal. We have the obligation to step outside of these rules, which is exactly what direct action and civil disobedience (like those actions performed by the civil rights movement) are for.

There are times when we do not have the resources to go beyond marching, which is why that has been the primary form of protest since 2001. The POLITICAL success of the protest of the RNC this year was that it showed that we do now have these resources. And that is a thrilling realization.

As someone who solely participated in the march, I can say that I respect and thank those who engaged in direct action. If we engaged only in activities that the mainstream media would cover accurately and sympathetically, we would probably have to be Republicans…

We should engage only in behavior that reflects our political aims and our principled beliefs, but we should never modify our behavior because the media will not cover it correctly. Unless it’s Democracy NOW!, Indy Media, or Socialist Worker, among other prominent alternative media, we can assume that no matter what we do, it will be portrayed poorly.

While clarity of message and unity of purpose absolutely contribute to the strength of a movement, a variation in tactics and strategy, coming from varied political organizations, can contribute positively to the success of a movement.

We had a well-planned protest that involved a clear demarcation of intent and risks, which allowed all parties involved to express, in their own way, their shared opposition.

I stand, as a march participant, in solidarity with those who were able and willing to do more.

It’s interesting that Mr. Gonzalez continues to criticize virtually everyone who organized actions at the RNC when he made no effort to become involved in the process himself. And rather than direct his frustrations with media coverage to the media, he continues to insist that march organizers “failed to focus on the political activism of the many instead of the antics of a few.”

To be clear, the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War focused on the “political activism of the many” FOR TWO YEARS leading up to the RNC. We organized a permitted demonstration that 30,000 people from around the country participated in. Organizing it took hours of planning, effort, and “focus.” We chose to concentrate on organizing a massive protest that a broad number of people could participate in, INSTEAD of trying to prevent others from expressing themselves in the ways they saw fit.

The Coalition never claimed to own “the movement.” To do so would be arrogant and counterproductive. We organized in the manner we believed to be most strategic but chose not to verbally denounce or physically interfere with the efforts of others. We believe diversity, creativity, and solidarity make us stronger. Apparently Mr. Gonzalez believes lecturing and policing fellow activists is only way to achieve SUCCESS. Again, if Mr. Gonzalez is so knowledgeable on the right way to change the world, I would ask why he made no effort to help organize protests at the RNC.

Mr. Gonzalez continues to criticize direct action as useless “in the 21st century” and seems to believe that positive coverage by the media should be the singuluar goal of a demonstration. But to use his own argument, he fails to explain HOW this would HELP in changing the system. And furthermore, his assumption that had there been no windows broken, the media would have produced lengthy and glowing reports about the march is not based in reality. When it comes to large permitted demonstrations, the media notoriously downplay our numbers, dismiss us as irrelevant, or fail to cover us at all. I actually thought the media did a better job of covering our march than usual, and don’t feel any sense of outrage or failure that they also covered the direct action that occurred.

And finally, I want to be clear that march organizers remained very focused on our message throughout the week. When asked about the broken windows at a press conference the following day, we responded that “It pales in comparison to the real violence happening in Iraq,” and went on to explain why 30,000 people marched to end the war and to demand peace, justice, and equality for all. We cannot speak for others or control the actions of others, and f. We will continue to put our faith in building a diverse coalition of activists who express their message in a variety of ways, rather than attempt to manipulate conditions with the hope that the corporate media will communicate our message for us.

Had we chosen to denounce the “antics of others” as Mr. Gonzalez recommends, infighting among protesters would most definitely have been the focus of news coverage. This would serve to create divisions among potential allies and would certainly become one of the very distractions from THE MESSAGE that Mr. Gonzalez seems so intent on avoiding.

And finally, is strictly “playing by the rules” really the best way to change the system that made the rules? I think I can speak for the majority of those who organized against the RNC that we don’t think so. On the last day of the RNC, nearly 400 people were arrested for the “crime” of marching after a permit expired. As an organizer of that action, we have found that challenging the rules and refusing to be silent energized and inspired both participants and onlookers. An AP reporter who was arrested with us, called our office the next day and said, “That was great.”

Our critics are certainly entitled to their opinions, but I think it’s safe to say that those actively engaged “en la lucha” will continue to look for ways to cooperate with each other, and challenge the system rather than the other way around.

I would add a little historical context to Mr Gonzalez bringing up the legacy of Ghandi and King in an effort to make his points. If we were to look deeper into the context of both the Indian independence and civil rights movements, we would find that neither would have been successful if they weren’t happening side by side with militant movements that directly challenged the control of the government at the time (armed struggle in India, and the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam in the US). Political movements don’t exist in a vacuum. In the end, the governments of India and the US were forced to deal with and legitimize Ghandi and King as the ‘nicer’ face of the truly revolutionary movements that were going on around them. You can see this process over and over again from the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War to, locally, the struggle against developers on the West Bank of Minneapolis. Without true challenges to their order and control, governments have the luxury of ignoring protesters who follow the rules.

15 million people took to the streets around the world at the start of the Iraq war, the single largest protest in history. This mass expression of dissent was largely ignored, and the responses of governments around the world was to simply refine their ‘image and perception’ in the media to make the war easier to swallow.

If indeed “the ONLY way to achieve our goals is through the political process, and we must play by the rules of this process”, then we are in severe trouble as the people who came up with those rules have already excluded us. If our movements cannot have creativity outside of that warped system and people cannot take principled and well thought out actions against that system, then we are doomed to playing the game set up for the rich and powerful.

We have tools other than the ‘masters’ tools’ at our disposal, and we are made stronger by using them.