How is a liberal campaign going to ‘get the charges dropped’?
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.
i would be really interested in hearing how other people think that the drop the charges/solidarity campaign should work, what tactics should be used, and how we should engage with other people and with who, so that this critique can be translated into discussion among the orgasn network and actual practical steps to action
Comment by anita — February 12, 2007 @ 4:35 am
I’d be really interested in how those pursuing the current strategies think about what they are doing and saying now.
Comment by benjamin rosenzweig — February 16, 2007 @ 9:32 am
i guess maybe different people think different things about what they are doing right now. but for me, i actually agreed with much of this article. but at the same time, i respect that when it comes down to it, any form of campaign needs to respect the wishes of the accused. and sometimes that means respecting that people are afraid. or that lawyers are conservative. particularly when we dont know exactly what we are facing in terms of cases at the moment. and i feel like i personally dont know what a radical campaign would entail, and so i actually am seriously interested in hearing other people’s ideas. i also feel as though it is worth having at least some dialogue in the mainstream media, and with people that are not “activists” or in “activist scenes”. sure people of the liberal left probably wont give any money, but there is more to it than money. it is about having some form of voice back. and i dont think we have managed it yet. and i see problems with this “voice back” or whatever as being solely concerned with deflecting discussion on what actually happened and defending the actions taken and rather talking about police violence on a few specific occasions when police violence occurs all over the world, everywhere, everyday. but there are lots of battles to be fought. and i guess some are slightly easier and less risky than others at certain occasions. and i guess also that not everyone knows how to go about pursuing a different strategy. maybe more voices could help us.
Comment by anita — February 20, 2007 @ 1:20 am
one other thing also, while i agree with a lot of the content of this article, i also feel as though there are ways to critique the actions of a group of people that do not involve open hostility. hostility doesnt really do much for group collectivity either.
Comment by anita — February 20, 2007 @ 1:27 am
I’m not sure that ‘hostility’ is the right way to characterise this (very direct) effort at critique, but it is precisely questions of ‘group collectivity’ - what group, what is meant by collective, the imaginary communities being addressed, the illusions of activistworld and of democracy - that do need to be reflected upon. Reflections with quite practical consequences for activity, including for the defence of those being targetted by the cops.
In relation to which, how do people feel about the sentiments of Anonymous’ “Breaking the Law” piece above, and what they might mean for action? Can this person be asked to elaborate on what they concretely think might be appropriate, in a space relatively safe from state interest or anonymously?
I genuinely hope that Anon’s text doesn’t get interpreted through a frame of supposed hostility, because in many ways, though I understand Anon’s desire for anonymity - given both the attentions of the state and the de facto isolation that would be implied by current strategies - the text alone is an example of other ways of talking about this repression, some other possibilities at least which might open space for a discourse a bit more harmonious with what I take to be the political position of some of the people who undertook action or at least are being charged with having done so.
What do people think?
Comment by benjamin rosenzweig — February 20, 2007 @ 2:02 am