My Thoughts on the (Second) Oakland Solidarity March, NYC 1/29/12

Firstly, if Sunday proved anything, it's that we need some organization in these marches. Banner holders should be at the front and sides of the marches, not only to keep shape and pace, but also to keep the cops out of the march. It serves the same function as their orange kettle nets, but obviously we would use it to our advantage (e.g. preventing them from reaching in and arbitrarily arresting someone, holding the line so that they cannot funnel us onto the sidewalk when we take the streets). Secondly we need to be able to take the streets. On Sunday, someone in a mask exhorted the crowd: "Marching on the sidewalks is counter-revolutionary," and he's right. All we really did for Oakland was go on a glorified walk with a police escort that constantly jeopardized both our safety and freedom. There is almost no point of marching unless we are creating a disruption (which we may have done, but in this case only marginally). On top of that marching on the sidewalks is tight, and opens us up to stampedes when cops rush into the crowd, and an inability to move freely to escape from them in dicey situations. Besides being dangerous in many ways it was also the cause of a major problem on Sunday: Indecision.

Here I think it is important to draw a parallel to the first Oakland Solidarity March. On that occasion, we were only confined to the sidewalk during the very beginning of the March, when passing by Ground Zero (this was in the days when Zuccotti was a living, breathing thing) and while we were at City Hall. But once we recognized there was a kettle closing, we rushed onto the pavement on Broadway and from that point on there was no stopping us. The half of the March I was on (the other half took Broadway all the way North to Union Square) spread into the West Village and meandered in almost no particular direction, constantly maintaining the streets, having full time to set up trash roadblocks on some of them before the police got to us (even though the peace police cleaned it up before they ever arrived). Coupled with points of running at full speed (which contravenes the conventional wisdom of keeping pace) we still overcame indecision. I think this is solely because we maintained access to the streets and therefore managed to keep the momentum going. When we are on the sidewalks the police are already dictating the terms on which we can march, and therefore limit our ability to make decisions (even if these decisions are mere manifestations of crowd psychology). This is why the March fizzled out at Tompkins Square Park on Sunday, and why we didn't take advantage of clear opportunities to take the pavement in Midtown earlier in the night. 

Another way to deal with indecision is by having flag-bearers in communication with Bicycle Scouts in the blocks ahead of the March. Even if this communication is lacking and the flag-bearer is making autonomous decisions, it can still add to the cohesiveness of a march simply by giving the marchers a clear sense of purpose (follow that flag).

I want to touch on the ideas on "violece" and the "peace police" which were highlighted by the conspicuous throwing of bottles on Sunday. Throwing bottles randomly is not productive (I think an argument could be made that projectile throwing can be effective in a standoff situation with two lines opposing each other and an obviously established no-man's land) and just because these people are wearing masks doesn't mean they're Black Bloc. Blac Bloc is a tactic that requires both organization and numbers, and what I saw Sunday was not that, but individual assholes who only wanted to injure the police at the cost of having cops chase them into crowds, injuring protesters in the process. Blac Bloc as a tactic is supposed to PROTECT people on the March by virtue of their organization and willingness to clash with the police. Shields, for example are obviously purely defensive. When organized into a Phalanx formation people wielding shields can protect many people, and also do things like better maintain access to the streets and distract the cops from attacking people who are being peaceful. There are tactics that we can borrow from the 'black bloc' without engaging in wanton property destruction or other activities that put people unnecessarily at risk. One of the highlights of the first Oakland Solidarity March was when a number of masked people (black bloc-ish), myself included, helped break a kettle, saving a large number of people from arrest, and leaving us with an orange mesh trophy to carry down Broadway. Organization in these situations is key (it all started with an outward call that the kettle was happening behind us and that militants were needed to help break it), and anonymity to some is paramount, which brings me to the attack on @timcast 

While I respect the service livestreamers provide in keeping people informed without either presence or fair coverage from the MSM, and (to what extent, really?) holding police accountable, this is a revolution, and not a purity contest. We will have to do grimy things, illegal things (the least of which would be marching on the pavement, unarresting people, and breaking kettles, though this is obviously not really what I mean by this), and these things should not always be broadcast to the world (and the police who are some of livestream's biggest fans). These could have legal implications for people that engage in them and also have a chilling effect as to what risks some people are willing to take if it could be used as evidence against them in case of their arrest. Openness and transparency are obviously important to us: this is what we want out of our governments! But in certain cases we need to be secretive and perhaps even distort the truth or outright lie. If we are to succeed we will have to recognize that livestreaming isn't sacrosanct and CAN be counterproductive. That said, I witnessed @timcast get accosted on Eviction Night (and at that time even made the argument that seeing people release the air from tires of NYPD paddywagons on livestream would be radicalizing for those watching) and I saw what happened to him yesterday. Carrerists who are trying to make a name for themselves aren't our friend as revolutionaries, but even if they aren't willing to respect people's wishes VIOLENCE SHOULD NEVER BE USED AGAINST THEM. There are those who value truth at all costs, and those who value revolution at all costs. In many ways these are in conflict with each other, perhaps to the point of mutual exclusivity, but both are commendable positions. 

Now, on to the "peace police." These people are incredibly divisive in moments where unity is absolutely necessary. Some might argue the same thing for those who set up roadblocks and hurl projectiles at the police, and engage in other "non-peaceful" activities. However I have never seen people doing those things attack other protesters (even though in certain instances they create dangerous situations that put other protesters at risk, but this is a result of selfishness and stupidity, not tactics). I have seen "peace police" attack supposed comrades either verbally or physically for doing something that wasn't "peaceful." Something that bothered me on Sunday was a masked man threw a bottle at the cops when we were at the abandoned school in Alphabet City, and he was verbally accosted by a protester. The police saw what was going on and arrested the protester who accosted the bottle thrower. On one level, the bottle thrower is a selfish asshole, as one of our comrades got arrested because of his actions (never mind the fact that he ducked before throwing it and immediately moved deeper into the crowd, which looked cowardly to say the least). On the other hand, if the protester kept his fucking mouth shut, he would've never gotten arrested. A person who assaults a livestreamer, whatever you think of them (snitch, invaluable service), should be brought to the police. But anyone who would snitch on a comrade, no matter how stupid or selfish their action may be, if it is not directed at one of our compatriots there is never a justification for it.


Update: I want to point out what may seem a glaring inconsistency with my logic in saying that militants have never verbally or physically attacked peaceful protesters in light of the discussion on the attack on Tim Pool is in fact perfectly reasonable. Tim Pool, Luke Rudkowski, and others that have become associated with #OWS (some may say profiteering, at the very least using it as a springboard for their careers) are only covering the events, not participating in them. That is to say they are journalists and not protesters. In Luke Rudkowski's video which ran in the Guardian with an accompanying piece by Ryan Devereaux, the arrest and release of a member of We Are Change includes some horrific speech from the NYPD officers but also some very telling lines from the cameraman. He tells them he is a journalist, not a protester, and he was only running down the street to catch the arrest as it is "worth money." This may have been overlooked by some because of the language and threats made by the NYPD officer, but it is a significant illustration of the point that they are not one of us. They are indeed journalists, not revolutionaries, and any attack on them, however unjustifiable and despicable it may be, are not attacks on one of our own. 


I would also like to add something to the list of negatives for marching on the sidewalk. When you experience the "photographer swarm" or "flash-bulb circle-jerk," every time a cop tries to arrest someone on the sidewalk it completely stops the march and has a tendency to split it up (a strategy of the police to put an end to the march)