Re: <nettime> Pierre Khalfa (ATTAC-France) on violence & the movement after Genoa

[n ik <fragments@va.com.au>]

*i sent my first short response back to jeroen. such a short and 
condesending piece dererved only a short response. but i thought 
better of it and composed a response to both jeroen, pierre, and 
Patrice*

The current 'movement' is not just part of the european history of 
resistance against capitalism - it is also in part a *global* 
resistance against capitalism, corporate globalisation (which is a 
relatively recent phenomena) and *colonialism*

There is also a very clear genealogy of the most recent series of 
protests and resistances - you can trace them back to the 
'encounters' organised by the zapatistas (two, one in 96 and another 
in 97):

=46rom the PGA bulletin,
"After the second encuentro, in August 1997, some 50 representatives 
of these varied movements - including indigenous groups from Nigeria 
and Mexico, and farmers' organizations from India, Brazil, Bolivia, 
and Indonesia - sat down to plan worldwide protests against the World 
Trade Organization, the prime symbol and instrument of corporate 
globalization. To facilitate organizing, they created an ongoing 
network, which they called Peoples' Global Action, or PGA for short."

The first global day of action took place in may 98 organised largely 
from within the PGA network. We can then trace the current series 
through the next PGA action - J18 (99). The third in this series 
wasN30 (Seattle - which wasn't just Seattle, but another in the 
series of global days of action).

It then blossomed into what we have today. But it is important to 
remember that it isn't the result of the history of resistance with 
europe or america that lead to where we are today. The overwhelming 
'wieght' of this meshwork of networks and movements lies in the 
South. And the overwhelming majority of emails, letters, etc that I 
have seen, read and received from the South have not been reformist 
in nature, to say the least.

When Pierre Khalfa talks of 'taking charge', will he be telling the 
brazillian landless peasants movement how to compromise with the 
brazilian government? Will he be negotiating on behalf of the 500,000 
Indians who took to the streets in may 98? Will he be organising with 
the italian police so as to create an authorised space for 
'legitimate and self-policed' protest? Will he also negotiate the end 
of undercover cops attacking protesters, COINTELPRO activities, and 
the incorporation of fascists organisations in paramilitary 
operations?

My biggest problem with Pierre Khalfa's work is the claim to 
authority and control - it is both unneeded, and undesirable. 
Recuperation is a real threat. It is an old tactic, but well worn. 
Work with those that are willing to compromise, and marginalise the 
rest. Then give the compromised a stake in the established order, and 
institute a minor change in such a way as to profit those who would 
have otherwise suffered. Then put that in a global context - divide 
the Northern networks and groups, and ignore and surpress the 
Southern networks and movements.

(and so jeroen, it is not some 'heroic' myth that sustains my disgust 
and disappointment at those that would compromise (which is not the 
same thing as those that are not 'warriors' - being non-militant (or 
'fluffy') does not automatically mean being compromised. There is 
room for a vast range of tactics and strategies - but they will all 
be equally sold out through compromising with governments, 
trans-governmental organisation and corporations. It is also worth 
noting that one particular tactic for dealing with 'movements' such 
as this one is to 'decapitate' the leadership. And if no leadership 
can be found, as is the case with 'us', then leadership can be 
'installed' and created).

Compromise under these circumstances will not mean improvement in the 
circumstances of most people across the global. Many of the networks 
and organisations I have had contact with say that only the 
devolution of power (or governance, or control) to the local level, 
along with the abolition of exploitative, and hierarchical structures 
and powers (ie, capitalism, nationalistic governmental structures, 
colonial structures etc).

As for the question of violence:
(which, again, jeroen accuses me of 'enjoying' - a nasty and low 
smear. Anyone who has ever been a victim of violence will know that 
it is not something that can be enjoyed. And there is no thrill in 
seeing your comrades, friends and family suffer. One can be reluctant 
yet still face the violence of the state, of capital, of colonialism. 
And belonging and community are different things to comradery - 
comradery forms of the field, belonging and community develop through 
the myriad of small and invisible interactions and stories shared by 
a body of people. I am a part of a community. And a part of this 
community chooses to resist. Indeed part of the communities' identity 
is bound up in resistance - though not all of its resistance is 
founded on confrontation.)

=46irstly, Pierre Khalfa's work quite clearly ignores the fact that in 
genoa (as well as in prague, washington, quebec, melbourne, 
barcelona,=8Ai.e all of the cities in the North which have seen 
'anti-globalisation' protests) there was a significant body of police 
and agent-provocateurs (such as fascists) that disguised themselves 
as black bloc'ers and engaged in violence against other protesters, 
and against targets that are not normally part of the black blocs 
'range' (ie, small local shops, etc).

Secondly, it doesn't see that in most other places, the black bloc 
have worked quite well with other organisations, affinity groups, 
etc. Quebec was a perfect example of that.

Thirdly, it ignores the fact that it has been the more militant and 
creative groups, as opposed to the more traditional 'organised' 
groups (like NGO's and trade unions - though not all trade unions) 
that have lead the resistance. More often than not the more 
traditional groups have lead (or tried to lead) people away from 
confrontation and away from significance - as has been pointed out by 
many commentators (all far more articulate than me) without the 
confrontation there would be no movement, and there would be no 
effect.

And lastly, it doesn't address the fact that for the majority of the 
people who are a part of this 'movement' have absolutely no choice - 
peacefully working with the government to create a 'legitimate' and 
polite space for protest against the IMF in Ghana (or Argentina, 
Bolivia, the Philippines, Peru, Turkey, Bangladesh, etc) doesn't seem 
very realistic to me. Tactics and strategies must be decided upon by 
the people who will be engaged in their application, and in context. 
Compromise and the imposition of the 'rules of engagement' will do 
nothing but split the 'movement', alienate the organisers from the 
organised, and create yet another bureaucracy within the current 
state structure that will do everything that it can to maintain the 
status quo (with one or two minor changes) against the tide of change.


nik


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net