[pf] FROM SEATTLE TO PRAGUE AND BEYOND

by Tom Wheeler

19 December 2000 13:29 UTC

This is the lead editorial from the current issue of Anarchy magazine. - Tom

FROM SEATTLE TO PRAGUE AND BEYOND

    The events of the last year have changed the face of the contemporary
political spectrum. For the first time since early in the
last century anarchists are beginning to be heard and
taken seriously by large numbers of people around
the world. Of course, most mainstream media atten
tion is still devoted to denouncing, dismissing or
belittling anarchist ideas and actions. This is only to
be expected when huge corporations control the vast
majority of communications over the entire continent. What is really
new is that anarchist resistance has grown and become so vocal that it
can no longer be ignored as it has been since
the '60s. (And even in the turbulence of the
late 1960s, although anarchists got some
attention—especially within the anti-war
movement, anarchists were so few in number
and often so inarticulate that they had a
minimal impact on events.)
    With the growth and rising militance of the
global anti-globalization movement in Seattle,
Davos, Washington D.C., Melbourne, and
now Prague, it has become clear that there is
an increasingly significant number of anar
chists involved in all of the most crucial areas
of this resistance. Libertarian forms of organization have achieved
widespread acceptance within this resistance. Anarchist goals—the
destruction of neoliberal institutions, along with the destruction of
capitalism and the state—are becoming increasingly visible and gaining
adherents. And a clear majority of the most militant participants
around the world appear to be anarchists.
    Yet it is precisely at this time that many leftists have begun calling
for
the abandonment, or at least a significant slowdown, of the now
frequent, international mass-mobilizations confronting neoliberal
institutions around the world. The major arguments for slowing down
or abandoning this, so far, very fruitful strategy are several. They
include criticisms that (1) mobilizing masses of people so frequently in
different locations is elitist, can't be sustained and will lead to
burn-out;
that (2) mobilizing for mass confrontations with neoliberal institutions
means neglecting local and regional organizing at home; that (3) as
these confrontations with global capitalist institutions continue the level
of repression will escalate to the point where the costs of resistance
outweigh the benefits; and that (4) radical goals of abolishing capitalism
and the state outright are being lost amid the many more limited calls
for "fair trade" within capitalism and defenses of national sovereignty
against globalist capitalism.
    As with any statements about huge, complex social movements there
will usually be some grain of truth within any criticisms that might be
made. However, the overriding agenda hidden behind these current
criticisms would appear to quite possibly be an increasing fear that the
traditional ideologies, organizational forms and leaderships of the left
are being LEFT BEHIND. In effect, the anti-globalization movement is being
not so subtly asked to subordinate itself to those who want to channel
the movement in their own preferred directions. Thus the spontaneity
of—and libertarian organizational forms taken by—anti-globalization
resistance are not just a threat to, but a negation of, the leadership
hierarchies of traditional leftist organizations. The free-for-all contest
of diverse groups working, more or less, together against globalist neo-
liberalism—without the burden of any hegemonic theoretical or
ideological goals—eschews the heretofore almost inescapable least-
common-denominator orientation of mobilizations of mass resistance
(in North America, especially). While the diverse tactics of confronta
tion—from nonviolent resistance to creative symbolic actions to active
and directly physical attacks—resist any easy, premature interpretation
of the resistance, leaving it open to many levels of participation.
    So, it might be true that (1) mobilizing masses of people so frequently
in different locations could be elitist, unsustainable, and likely to lead
to burn-out of activists IF the same small group of people were required
to organize and turn out for each event. However, one of the biggest
strengths of anti-globalization resistance has been the incorporation of
ever more new participants from around the
world. The fact that the largest mobilizations
have been organized in different places each
time has meant that local radicals in each
region have had the valuable opportunity to
participate intimately in their planning, orga
nizing and realization, while any radicals
unable or uninterested in travelling to the
primary sites of confrontation have had multi
ple opportunities to either participate or
organize in a multitude of satellite protests
around the globe.
    It might be true that (2) mobilizing for mass
confrontations with neoliberal institutions could mean neglecting local
and regional organizing at home IF the mobilizations were the only
activities in which participants engaged. However, a closer look at the
actual activities of participating radicals would reveal that many are
already heavily involved in local interventions on their home turf. And
many of the rest wouldn't be interested in traditional leftist organizing
even if they didn't participate in anti-globalization events. The biggest
problem for the critics here seems to be that those radicals who are
involved in local interventions aren't doing the type of traditional leftist
organizing the critics prefer.
    It also might be true that (3) as these confrontations with global
capitalist institutions continue the level of repression will escalate. This
should be expected. Whenever the business-as-usual of capital and state
are genuinely threatened we should expect attacks on radicals to
escalate. However, this is primarily an argument for constantly
inventing new and more creative forms, methods and means of
targeting those we are confronting, not of abandoning confrontation
merely to avoid repression.
    And, finally, it appears patently untrue that (4) radical goals of
abolishing capitalism and the state outright are being lost amid the
more limited calls for "fair trade" within capitalism and defenses of
national sovereignty against globalist capitalism. In fact, many more
people have now actually HEARD these radical demands raised, than
would have ever noticed them hidden in the programs and theoretical
publications of formal leftist organizations—whose actual practices
have generally been at odds with these goals anyway.
    A year ago it was Seattle! Yesterday it was Prague! Tomorrow,
the resistance to capital and state is coming to a city near you!

*************************************************
Alternative Press Review  -  www.altpr.org
Your Guide Beyond the Mainstream
PO Box 4710  -  Arlington, VA 22204

Mid-Atlantic Infoshop  -  www.infoshop.org
Infoshop News Kiosk - www.infoshop.org/news.html

"Our first work must be the annihilation of everything
as it now exists."  -  Mikhail Bakunin

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed,
debriefed, or numbered! My life is my own."  -  No.6