awakening [Archive]

bcbm

27th October 2009, 05:02

interesting critique of this from earlier:

Next weekend, major protests are planned in Chicago against the American Bankers Association. The protests are being called the "Showdown in Chicago" (an allusion to the Seattle WTO?), and are being organized by a left coalition, spearheaded by the SEIU. Anarchists are being actively invited to participate, to help add "color" and "flair" to the demos. Great, we're all against bankers and the rich, so we should hit be excited to hit the streets, right? And it'll be a great way to maintain momentum after the G20, right? No! Think twice before joining this mobilization. There are a number of serious concerns that need to be raised within radical circles about protesting the ABA. I'll outline those below, but before that, let me provide links to the main organizers' website, and to the anarchist call-to-action:

Showdown in Chicago (http://www.showdowninchicago.org/index.html)
Infoshop story (http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20091015155357966)

Serious concerns:

1. As can be seen on both websites, the main slogan for the protests is "Wall St. is at War with America." This is explicitly fascist. Their argument is that American strength is being undermined by unpatriotic, cosmopolitan bankers- irresponsible parasites who need to be liquidated to create room in the economy for "real, productive" industry (e.g. arms manufacturers). This is the same line of thinking employed by fascists in the early 30s, who wanted to eliminate the traitorous bankers (supposedly mostly Jewish) who had "stabbed the German people in the back." And indeed, the template for most critiques of finance capital is usually based on anti-semitic canards, even if the anti-semitism never becomes explicit.

Many anarchists defend this slogan on the grounds that we need to reach out to angry white workers who have been drawn into right-wing populist movements such as the Tea Parties. But there is nothing subversive about pandering. Simply marching behind the same slogans (or even slightly altering them to add a militant spin) in no way draws these angry whites towards us. It just compromises our autonomy, and pulls us towards the same right-wing positions that only strengthen nationalism, the economy, and borders.

2. Expanding on the point above, when the critique of capitalism is
limited to the critique of finance capital (i.e. banks, etc.), it can only obscure the real nature of capitalism. Capitalism is not rich people, it is not banks, it is a social relation of domination in the workplace which extends itself across all of society. "It's our own lives that are the authentic place of the social war."

Furthermore, in times of economic crisis, this half-way critique is used by politicians to mobilize and divert angry people. In turn, these faux-popular movements help to reorganize the capitalist economy, by demanding greater efficiency through the elimination of "parasitical sectors" such as lenders and investors. And again, capital is not a parasite to be eliminated from the top of the economy. In other words, as anarchists, we are not interested in questions of simple "management," the leftist notion that all we have to do is kick out the bosses and then manage things for ourselves. We recognize that the entire structure of the economy has to be questioned.

3. We must be extremely suspicious of the coalition calling the protest. And we have to ask ourselves why they are soliciting anarchist involvement. It seems clear to me that the unions are now so weak and delegitimized that they would like a bit of anarchist militantcy to lend authenticity to their stage-managed demonstration. Should we always be willing to play the role of a loyal opposition? Why are we ok always privately talking shit on unions that we know are corrupt and anti-working class, and then extending public "critical support" to these exact same
structures?

And while I would argue that in modern capitalism, the social function of unions is to discipline and control a certain (ever-shrinking) section of the working class, I'd also like to point out that the specific unions calling these protests are particularly disgusting. As was widely covered in the mainstream press a couple years ago, the SEIU's president Andy Stern led a breakaway of five major unions from the AFL-CIO to start a new umbrella labor organization called Change to Win. One of his main arguments was that the AFL-CIO was too leftist and based on class struggle (!!!) to succeed in the 21st century.

Beyond this obvious, but abstract, absurdity, the SEIU is well-known for its strong-arm tactics when dealing with working-class members who get uppity. You might have heard about the attacks by SEIU thugs on health care workers in California who tried to break away from the union due to its hierarchical structure. If not, some of that story can be found here:

http://libcom.org/forums/news/seius-hostile-takeover-uhw-california-29012009

This is only one story out of many (The above link also references anti-SEIU struggles by workers in Puerto Rico). The SEIU explicitly calls for collaboration with management and the disciplining of rebel workers.
This isn't a matter of "sucking it up" and working with an unsavory
coalition. *The SEIU is a more direct enemy of the working class than the ABA* (which is after all, primarily a symbolic trade association).

****

Participating in the ABA protests means rubbing shoulders with some really uncomfortable "allies." It means joining a proposed coalition of the far left and the far right to help "strengthen America." I understand how this situation could feel seductive, given the chance to march with "ordinary, working class people" (again, mainly an illusion, because many of the people bused in by unions are frequently more conservative and obedient retired members) and given that various well-known anarchist politicians and street-performers are flying in to flesh-out this particular show. But it's not enough to just critique these protests by contributing symbolic anarchist militantcy. After all, when angry masked crowds march behind fascist slogans, those crowds tend to be called lynch mobs or pogroms (depending on where you're from).

If you feel like you must attend, consider refusing to extend that "critical support" to the protest organizers. Bring materials that disrupt the narrative of a pure American people who are being victimized by international, cosmopolitan bankers, or take action to highlight the disciplinary role of the unions against the working class. I know that there are already some people considering such measures locally, but perhaps this is a good opportunity for autonomous action?

http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/9935