How is a liberal campaign going to ‘get the charges dropped’?

by kernal.corn

The above argument for a liberal campaign is familiar, and often inescapable, but in this case I think it runs on particularly thin ice - that is, the possible ground gained by making the liberal compromises seem quite limited (infinitely small). To run a liberal campaign is not just to compromise but also to compromise for no gain, whatsoever…

1. What makes the ‘argument against what is happening…stronger’ is not the content of ‘theory of democracy’ stuff but that it seeks to gain the support of a section of capital with power. It is wrong to suggest that it speaks to a wider audience, to people, it speaks to an ideological position of a section of capital – and that is where it strength is drawn from. Unfortunately, for this particular case that the traditionally appealed to section (Camberwell and toorak lefties) are not going to be coming to the party - especially to a party with those that attacked police without provocation (which by and by is something A bloc and co should be congratulated upon).

2. They ‘wont be coming to the party’ because the basis of liberal defence for radicals of ‘we went overboard’ but are essentially good went out the window thanks to the distancing efforts of the Make Poverty History and StopG20 (organisers and authoritarian left) sillys.

 3. Thus it seems absolutely ridiculous to be running the ‘democratic protest’ and ‘police violence’ stuff. In this context a liberal campaign can only be read as the police should stand still and do nothing whilst we bash them - a worthy cause - but not one that the citizens of Camberwell and Toorak are going to rally behind. There is nothing that they can identify as their interest. Eg radical press stuff can be divorced from the content and run as freedom of press…

4. In terms of getting ‘public attention: the ridiculousness of such positions mean there will be little attention given to these arguments, and less to the situation of the defendants. (perhaps more effective in getting ‘attention’ would be shock value of the more radical public statements).

5. Liberal campaign flys in the face of the expressed politics prior to and immediately after the protest expressed by Arterial bloc and associates. And in doing so breaks apart any group collectivity that exists… The group becomes an agent of punishment - not only are there fines and court punishments but defendents have to pretend that they believe in bullshit and say it, not just in the court room but everywhere. Further, the small support the group has is only damaged by a liberal campaign. A liberal campaign pleads to those with power - wealthy liberal left - those that do support activities and the approach of A bloc are hardly from that class and can do nothing if asked to support A bloc in ways that seeks them to pretend that they are.

 6. The liberal campaign is not crucial to the defence - money can be raised and is being raised from the ‘activist community’ not those that are appealed to by a liberal campaign. A liberal campaign if anything will decrease the potential for raising money to pay costs as liberals will say no to the ruffians and others will say no to the lame arses. …the problem is that when faced with an unknown threat/punishment the recourse to the concessionist and liberal ‘theory of democracy’ stuff becomes harder to escape. The justifiable benefit of leniancy from the concessions to a liberal campaign constitute an infinitesimaslly small limit. That coupled with the infinitly increasable threat of aggressiveness as a result of a ‘radical campaign’ constitutes an insurmountable, although imaginary abyss. Further, the benefit of a radical campaign is only seen collectively and realitvely and as a result of intangible shifts in the power relations between groups – hence, remains, for all intents and purposes, eternally undefinable and therefore invisible. In these circumstances the inertia towards liberal concessionism seems insurmountable. Perhaps the first step in getting away from this pull would be to try and define the ‘radical campaign’ - a task made more difficult thanks to the spectrality of stopg20. This task would perhaps be much more worthwhile then creating boring press releases hated by those that read them and ignored (or ridiculed) by their intended audience, making badges about defending the right to protest… …the possiblities are much more interesting with the radical options as well - eg run the campaign as something like - in early 90s we could loot myer and get away without this crap , now in 2007 things have become so much worse that we can no longer get away with throwing rubbish at police therefore people need to reassert some power to correct this terrible state of affairs, so that ‘the community can enjoy the delights of looting’. Such a campaign would certainly alter the people being talked to… lastly in the context of a ‘your rights are worth voting for’ campaign a radical campaign could be more broadly useful in countering the stultifying management of people through unions and other institutions.