Skill sharing! Spread the love around!
Q: How can we increase our diversity of knowledge around skills and tactics?
A: By skill sharing
I support Diversity of Tactics since diversity is the natural state of the world. Diversity is much more lovely and full of possibility than coercion-imposed unity. Of course, my concept of Diversity of Tactics must include accountability and successful strategy and does not mean "anything goes" since that is not tactically sound.
Plus, it's the best tactic for the movement and all that glorious changing the world stuff. Like I said, I'm not in to fight, I'm in it to win.
The more we know, the stronger we are.
The more we can do for ourselves instead of relying on commerce or the state, the stronger we are.
Advertising
The more we can build a diverse alternative to the capitalist, colonial system, the stronger our argument will be for change.
I'm in to win.
Plus, the information you learn from skill sharing will last longer than any pitch-tent weekend protest!
The People's Summit is hosting a whole series of skill sharing workshops during the weekend of June 19 to 20, 2010; with opening night on Friday June 18, 2010 titled "Stories and Solutions from North and South."
Examples include:
--Know Your Rights workshop at the People's Summit on Saturday June 19 3:00 pm - 5: 00 pm and Sunday June 20 10:00 am - 12:00 pm noon at Ryerson University.
--Diversity of Tactics: What does it mean on Sunday June 20 at 12:00 pm noon
--Direct Action Training on Saturday June 19 at 1:00 pm - 2:30 pm and Sunday June 20 at 10:00 am to 12:00 pm noon.
--Decoloninzing the Heart on Saturday June 19 at 10:00 am - 12:00 pm noon
--DIY Bike Maintenance on Saturday June 19 at 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm
--Making Musical Instruments on Sunday June 20 at 10:00 am - 12:00 pm noon
Be well, rebellions!
krystalline
I've included another drinking song you and grandma can learn before you hit the barricades!
But if I may throw in my two cents, please don't come drunk or high to the demonstrations. If you're in an incapacitated and unpredictable state, you become a liability to the movement. I'm in it to win, and I take the movement seriously. Plus, if you don't have the stones to do what you're planning sober, then...
Statica,
I've heard this assertion that because the 'natural state of the world' is biodiversity, that this is some kind of logical justification for diversity of tactics (which again, is a useful legitimization smokescreen for the use of violent tactics, which do nothing good for the movement - if you don't like it coming from me, try hearing it from someone else.. - though I don't fully agree with Rovics, he is prettly clearly on the same level as me with violent tactics in protests, which you seem to indirectly celebrate through supporting 'diversity of tactics').
There is no justifiable connection between biodiversity and diversity of tactics - you state the connection whimsically, and perhaps that's all there is to it; but when we're talking about justifying totally ineffective violent tactics that hinder the broader nonviolent movements critical of capitalism and war we're dealing with important, not whimsical issues..
So allow me to suggest once again that attempting to connect biodiversity to some kind of justification for violent tactics in protest is completely spurious. I would also suggest that you simply come out and try to defend violent tactics in protest with actual arguments which can be debated and discussed.
Quote: "I would also suggest that you simply come out and try to defend violent tactics in protest with actual arguments which can be debated and discussed."
Perhaps I am writing under some form of hyposis and don't recall what I have written, so I would like you to point out to me, Prof Harden, where I advocate violent tactics?
Yes.... though I assume you do not accept the point that 'diversity of tactics' serves to legitimate, and act as a supporting umbrella for, violent tactics? If you don't accept that, then you are attempting to skirt the issue. Quite to the point - most of us would accept a nonviolent diversity of tactics. But that's not what my former student Alex and many others want - they support and advocate for violence. Do you? Does 'diversity of tactics', to you, mean that those who support and take part in violent tactics are either justified, or more to the point, 'effective' - or is it preferable to you to have this situation where 'DoT' serves to legitimate the use of violent tactics?
2 related articles for you to ponder on this note:
http://www.truth-out.org/global-justice-is-a-principle-tossing-rocks-a-tactic57360 (the first few paragraphs give the gist of a criticism of 'diversity of tactics'..
http://www.zcommunications.org/im-a-better-anarchist-than-you-by-david-rovics (this one comes from a different angle, and he does seem to support violence in principle in 'desperate situations' (citing Cuba), but he digs in forcefully to those in Vancouver who advocate the use of violence, which of course Alex Hundert defended himself.. (to whichI replied).
in peace,
-A
Perhaps you should consider actually reading my communiques before asking me the question I have publically answered about the FFFC Ottawa incedent since that's the topic you really want to know about. I've amde my opinion clear, Prof. Harding and it's no state secret.
No, I'm not asking for your viewpoint here on FFFC, you misinterpret me; I think you were at least fairly clear on that from the outset in your first FFFC article, in criticizing the firebombing.. Rather, I'd like to know what your thoughts are on the use of violent tactics - any violent tactics... are there some that you would endorse/defend? So, for example, my former student endorses the striking of a police officer to 'de-arrest' someone, and isn't generally averse to smashing things, those would be two examples, but there are more one can envision (destroying stuff, hitting people/things, throwing stuff would be others..). I'm wondering how you interpret 'diversity of tactics' - does that include violent tactics, or do you prefer a 'nonviolent diversity of tactics'?
On a related note, however:
The failure of 'diversity of tactics': TCMN spokesperson fails to condemn Ottawa firebombing on CBC's the National, June 14http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV Shows/The National/ID=1522283813
In the above clip, Lesley Wood of the 'Toronto Community Mobilization Network' (and an Assistant Professor of Sociology at York University) waffles badly when asked whether she, or the TCMN, condones the firebombing incident at a Royal Bank in Ottawa. In a swift stroke, Lesley embodied the failure of the idea of 'diversity of tactics', in failing to judge the violence used by the firebombers as reprehensible. Lesley 'refused to judge' tactics, on the basis that doing so would 'obscure discussion of issues'.
Lesley, I would submit the following: you cannot avoid a discussion of tactics, and specifically of violent tactics. By doing so you contribute to the existing 'state of play' with respect to 'DoT' which effectively provides a legitimation smokescreen for violent tactics. If we were talking about a nonviolent 'diversity of tactics', that would be a different matter. But even with respect to the firebombing incident, Lesley (and I presume by extension the TCMN) 'refuse to judge'. The TCMN seems to have self-consciously walked this path, in effectively tacitly justifying the use of violent tactics under a 'DoT' umbrella. In terms of the broader movement, the embrace of a 'DoT' that tacitly justifies, or provides some justification for violent tactics is a mistake. We cannot effectively build a mass movement confronting capitalism, neoliberalism and war by 'refusing to judge' those would use violent tactics that drive a wedge between the broader public and the very issues and questions global justice activists want to put forward. Please see parts 1 and 2 on the theme of 'diversity of tactics as the justification of violent tactics' also on my blog for further debate on this point.
And Harden's ridiculous smear campaign continues...
Lesley did NOT waffle badly. She was trying to keep the interview on track. She makes an excellent point that as soon as we start talking about violence we've stopped talking about the issues. A point that could very easily be applied to your absurd campaign against the organizers of G20 demonstrations. Why don't you quit trying to discredit people and start talking about the issues!!!!
Cytizen H, rabblers/babblers know the issues - capitalism, neoliberalism, war, climate change/sustainability, energy, food sovereignty, corporate rule, unjust trade and debt, women's rights, indigenous peoples, need I go on (as I've mentioned..) - but Lesley gave the impression to the national viewing public that 'protesters in Toronto' (read: TCMN - who voted for them in the social movements?) don't give a damn that some violent nutbars (departing from my usual sobriety) firebombed a bank in Ottawa. Why judge? It's the very same reason that the NDP deserves to be condemned for coming down on Libby Davies. Refusing to judge in Lesley's case (and the TCMN's case, by extension) expresses a tacit justification for violent tactics - that is what drives a wedge between the broader public, a potential growing movement, and the critical issues that we are trying to advance, in contrast to what's on offer from the G8/20. Mine is a longer term perspective than what spectacle bringing out violence can be planned next. I still maintain that those kinds of actions are only, at best, cathartic to the perpetrators... and do no service whatsoever to the goal of trying to build a mass movement...
Harden> you wrote "Lesley gave the impression to the national viewing public that 'protesters in Toronto' (read: TCMN - who voted for them in the social movements?) don't give a damn that some violent nutbars (departing from my usual sobriety) firebombed a bank in Ottawa."
That's simply not true. She gave YOU that impression. But, then, you'd already decided that. Anyone actually listening to the interview would hear what she actually said.
Stop it. You're fooling no one.
And, in fact you're Libby analogy is totally screwy. The FFFC Ottawa is in no way affiliated with TCMN or any Toronto group. We have no idea who they are. What's your point?
And if you say catharsis one more time i'm gonna scream. That argument holds NO water. ZERO. And you've made it over a dozen times now. The same ridiculous argument could be made of non-violent protests as well.
Your unrelenting need to overgeneralize, oversimplify, and villify has got to stop.
It is you, Professor, who does "no service whatsoever to the goal of trying to build a mass movement."
Well, you're right, folks can make up their own minds about what Lesley said in reaction to the question about the firebombing. But it seems awfully clear to me that she sidestepped the question, refusing to condemn ('we won't get into a discussion of tactics', she said). That seems a fairly clear non-judgement to me, wouldn't you say, Cytizen H?
With respect to - ahem - my 'C' argument, I apply it to violent tactics. No one and nothing is smashed, hit, thrown at, or hurt by nonviolent tactics. But then ,I think it's easy for readers to see that reality... though there will always be some who choose these violent, useless tactics for protests in NA/Europe. We shall see after the end of next week, and I don't think we can blame all the violence on agents provocateurs, who will doubtless be there.... ironically, as Rovics mentions in his article.
Though screaming - the vocal analogue for physical violence - may release emotion, it doesn't do much for communication or dialogue... but since, I think, you crave it here, you may vilify me again for the last word. I believe my arguments hold a good deal of H2O, but that's for the majority of readers to decide, luckily.... though I believe critics of violence are reticent to voice their feelings, so am glad to act as one voice for this perspective...
I suppose we'll see what happens next weekend. In accepting DoT, I think the TCMN has self-consciously made a blunder in tacitly accepting violent tactics that will be on display. There is no 'refusing to judge' - the act of 'not judging' is itself a judgement..
in peace...