Saturday morning my sister, Monica Bicking, and her boyfriend, Eryn Trimmer, were arrested in Minneapolis. Monica was released on Sunday, but Eryn and others are still in custody, and the police will try to keep them detained as long as possible. update: the two of them and six others from the Welcoming Committee are charged with felonies, including "furtherance of terrorism". A website has been set up in support of them, and to keep people informed about ongoing events in the case: rnc8.org
They were arrested for "conspiracy to incite a riot". This is the same charge used against the Chicago 8 (or 7) at the 1968 Democratic Convention. Perhaps the police have a sense of tradition?
But more directly she and Eryn were arrested in an attempt to preemptively suppress the protests at the Republican National Convention. They were both very active with the RNC Welcoming Committee, which is a group coordinating and supporting some of the people coming to the Twin Cities for the convention.
Obviously I’m very concerned by the arrests and charges. But there’s been a huge outpouring of support from the community — both from activist in the Twin Cities, and from their neighbors. In Chicago I’m a little unsure about what to do.
Reading articles about the incidents (Glenn Greenwald’s post on Salon is a good one) I find myself mostly avoiding the comment sections. The comments fall into two categories: mean comments against the protesters, and reactionary comments with no real substance ("this is proof this country is a police state!") Activists generally understand what’s going on, and people of a right-wing/authoritarian bend are hardly going to be convinced of anything, but there’s a lot of progressive people out there who’ve never really been involved in any activism like this. There’s very little explaining the protests, the role of activists like my sister, and the philosophies they hold. Certainly the news makes no attempt, and unfortunately the activists themselves often speak from an unexplained perspective.
So I’d like to use this as an opportunity to explain my understanding of the role of protest, what’s going on at the RNC specifically, and what an "anarchist" really is. At the moment I can’t do a lot to help Eryn and Monica directly, but at least I can talk about her personally instead of another story about a named but otherwise anonymous "protester".
The Role Of Protest
It’s challenging to explain and justify protest, at least in this country and at this moment. Probably the biggest blow for protest as a useful form of political expression was the February 15, 2003 protests against the Iraq War. I say this because those were the largest protests the world has ever seen, estimated around 10 million people, and yet they did so little to stop the war.
That war is still with us, and is still the most significant motivation for the RNC protests. The war has gone through many phases since then — purported success, then clear failure by just about anyone’s definition, then ongoing failure labelled as success because of dramatically lowered expectations (the surge). Public opinion has moved several times, but is constrained by what is considered the reasonable options. These "reasonable" options are defined by the Democratic and Republican elite. Balance in news means inviting participation from partisans from those two parties. In this context the Democratic party had a practical landslide in 2006, driven primarily by anti-war sentiments, and then proceeded to do almost nothing to stop the war. If protest has failed, then so has electoral politics.
I don’t have any third path to offer, but I just want to make it clear: none of us know what is best to do, none of us have figured out the way to effect change. People complain protest doesn’t work. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t, but frankly most things don’t work. Doing nothing definitely doesn’t work, and frankly that’s what most of us are doing. It’s hard to take criticisms seriously when they are made from a stance of inaction.
What might the RNC protests accomplish?
First, it is an attempt to break out of a politics restricted to two perspectives. I believe, quite firmly, that "radical left" opinions are actually quite mainstream. This was also the goal of the DNC protests. This goal has become quite difficult to achieve. News stations generally ignore protest, and when they do cover protest they seldom talk about the actual issues.
Second, protests can attempt to disrupt normal activity. To be fair, this is probably better termed "civil disobedience", and I’m sure there will be civil disobedience in response to the RNC. One possible goal of civil disobedience is to make news — to be so disruptive that you simply can’t be ignored. And even if the news won’t say why you won’t be ignored, at least one message that can be made clear: everything is not okay. Another goals is simply to disrupt the RNC. This is a bringing together of many of the architects and profiteers of war. This is a convention that includes many people advocating torture.
It’s also a convention of people who buy the lines about the Republican party being "conservative" and supporting "family values" and whatever other bullshit. One argument goes: oh, these poor dullards and simpletons! Do not interrupt their harmless partying! Do not interrupt their absurd views! They deserve their delusions as much as anyone! I say: this stuff is too important to defer to the bullshit of this political grandstanding.
Are We In A Time Of War?
It is all too easy to fall into "protesting for the right to protest". Lest I fall into this, I want to make it clear: protest itself is not the goal. 600,000 Iraqis dead. And to what ends? No ends at all? Unlikely! There is a purpose. It is a purpose architected by people who would throw away hundreds of thousands of lives. People may argue about whether war is valid. I don’t believe it is, nor do Monica or Eryn, but whatever your feelings: this is not an abstract war. This is a specific war. And this specific war is a war made by liars, by people who treat human life lightly, by people whose primary ambition seems focused on power itself.
600,000 dead, and what’s so different in America? Do you feel this war? If you didn’t turn on the TV or listen to the news, what would remind you that we are at war? What would remind you of all that’s happened? We are a nation at war, and yet there is nothing to show us this, it has no presence. Our nation is so large, our institutions so abstracted, our military so partitioned from most of society… we are numb to war. Moving around while numbed is dangerous. You can’t feel what you are doing. A cut doesn’t hurt, a bruise is just a faint sensation. We are a numbed nation and this is dangerous.
If I was to give one reason for civil disobedience, it would be this: to acknowledge this war is real. This isn’t just a difference of opinion, this isn’t just a debate. This is about how we exercise our collective power, the power that is exercised in the form of the state. This is our war, whether we feel it or not.
One of the criticisms of civil disobedience is to say it deprives the Republicans of their free speech. First, this is absurd. No form of civil disobedience deprives them of free speech. No one is taping their mouths shut. No journalists are being detained by activists. No debate is stifled. The RNC’s request: we want to speak our lies without interruption, without distraction. The Republicans have through decades of whining managed to frame the debate, to redefine "common sense" and "conventional thinking", to move the Overton Window far to the right. Free speech does not mean they should not be challenged. Protest challenges the content of their speech, it doesn’t deny them of the ability to speak.
This is an aside, but for all the effort put into limiting the bounds of debate I don’t think the Republicans, or Bush, have really changed the country as much as they are given credit for. I don’t think people are as easily manipulated as that. I think our core values are not so easily affected. If we were not so numb I think it would all come rushing back.
On "Anarchism"
If you read the articles you will see Monica and Eryn called "self-described anarchists". This is true, they are anarchists. I will attempt, briefly and probably inaccurately, to describe what anarchism is.
Anarchism is, at its core, a belief in the individual, and a belief that good flows uniquely from the individual. Conversely, it believes that bad comes from institutions, from the abstractions we build between people. Anarchism is a belief in the power of empathy instead of laws. Instead of leading our lives according to principles that are passed down to us, anarchism says we should live our lives based on our personal reflections and decisions. We should be deliberate, we should not be obedient.
The RNC Welcoming Committee (the name is ironic) is a "anarchist/anti-authoritarian" organization. Ha ha you say, isn’t an anarchist organization an oxymoron? If you meet an anarchist this is the most tedious joke you could possibly make. Anarchism is, of course, a somewhat chaotic philosophy. And any anarchist should be a human first, and an anarchist second — anything else would be contrary to the very principles of anarchism! More practically, they form groups based on shared understandings and motivations, and there is nothing at all inconsistent about individuals working together — indeed it is interpersonal cooperation that is at the heart of anarchist traditions.
Do anarchists want to tear down all institutions? I guess some flavors of anarchist rhetoric make this claim. Looking in from the outside, it feels like some kind of phase adolescent male anarchists go through. There is an underlying lack of respect for institutions and authority, and this is genuine. But though they see nothing wrong with disrupting institutions, violence against people is not considered acceptable. Some would like to categorize property damage as violence, but I find this rather disrespectful of genuine violence. Things don’t feel pain or fear.
Discussions of anarchism tend to degrade very quickly because people are overly obsessed with self-consistency. For instance: how could an entire society run without laws, governments, police, taxes? There are answers and speculations, but we would all do better to make the world we want now and here. This is what actual anarchists do — running whole societies might be fun to theorize about, but building a community is actually attainable, and among progressive groups anarchists are probably the most enthusiastic community builders.
Lastly: why the term "anarchism"? It’s a scary term, though it’s derivation is simply from the term "without rulers". It’s been a term used to scare people for so long that it’s hard to separate the idea from the myth. People at time suggest alternative terms. But anarchism isn’t just a philosophy, it’s a tradition and culture and shared understanding, one that goes back over a hundred years. And anarchists don’t want to disassociate themselves from that tradition. And usually, what does it matter what other people think of the name? It is however awkward when the police are trying to label you as a dangerous extremist.
Violence?
Reports have come out about violent protest. Update: There were reports of "violent protesters". Now police report that "one or two windows were broken" during the entire RNC. In other words, there was almost no violence at all by protesters, and almost no property damage. Frankly I feel stupid for ever believing there were even small groups of "violent protesters". There was simply no violence (under any definition of "violence") of any note by the protesters. (I’m actually surprised there weren’t more windows broken by stray police munitions.) Again police lack basic credibility in their statements. end update
Actual incidents are often exaggerated or fabricated. For instance, in the case of the home raids things like paint, bottles, and rags were labeled as "the ingredients for making Molotov cocktails". I’m sure every reader of this post has sufficient ingredients to make a Molotov cocktail. Also, many people have hatchets, bricks, and other materials. Buckets of urine were particularly attention-grabbing, but the only reason for these was that one of the houses had a broken toilet. The police interpretation of the confiscated material is not credible.
There have also been reports of violence at the protests themselves. First it should be noted that there are no reports of police or bystanders being injured. I personally find it is hard to classify property damage as "violence". If you don’t include property damage then there doesn’t seem to be much evidence of violence.
Protest is confrontational. Some will suggest that protesters should obey police in all situations. They suggest that protesters should obey all laws and only protest where permitted. They suggest protesters should not be disruptive of anyone else. The result would not be protest. In cases like the RNC, where extensive planning was in place to counter protest, non-confrontational protest means protesting according to someone else’s plans, someone who has no desire for the protest to succeed in any way. Once you confront the police, there will be violence — usually by the police. And sure, you can stand with a flower in your hand and get a face full of pepper spray, and of course many people choose that course. It’s a noble choice, but I can’t fault people for making other tactical decisions.
Another protesting tactic is the "black bloq", typically a group of people who try to attract the attention of the police, often through property damage. If the police have nothing better to do, then why not pin down the peaceful protesters and direct them where they can make the least impact? People in the black bloq will try to keep this from happening. It’s unlikely they were at all successful at the RNC as it was so thoroughly militarized. You could debate whether this is a good strategy (and there is lots of debate about this), but probably few people outside activists have any idea that there even is any underlying strategy.
Also, if you wonder why protesters, especially the anarchists, dress the way they do, it is primarily defensive. If you are going to get teargassed and peppersprayed does wearing a handkerchief seem so odd? And if they are tracking people to preemptively arrest, all the more reason to be as anonymous as possible.
Monica and Eryn
I’d like to speak specifically of Monica and Eryn. Talking to Monica about the RNC protests, she was never actually that excited. The RNC isn’t what she wanted to focus on. Why focus on the thing you dislike? Why focus on a political process you don’t believe in? Why focus on the workings of institutions you wish didn’t exist? She would have preferred to work on the scale she felt was valid — to build a community of individuals. But of course events are larger than us, and by whatever coincidence the RNC was coming to the Twin Cities. This is not the sort of thing you can just ignore. And of course it wasn’t up to her whether there would be protests.
Monica and Eryn are competent and diligent, so of course they would become important to the organizing process. It seems that there were infiltrators in many of the organizations, so it’s unsurprising that the police knew who to find when they were getting ready to suppress the protests. The two of them had expected informants from early on. Monica herself worked for a year for the American Friends Service Committee (a Quaker charity and peace advocacy organization) at a time when they were being spied on because of purported fears of violent protest. If you are not aware of Quakerism, it is a quite strictly passivist faith, and the pretense for the spying was exceptionally absurd. So Monica was not particularly shocked that there would be spying in the lead up to the RNC.
The RNC Welcoming Committee is itself a coordinating organization. It was inevitable that many, many groups would want to protest at the RNC. There’s no lack of people who are angry. The Welcoming Committee served as a local resource for all those people — so visitors could find a place to stay in the city, so people could coordinate with each other, so people could perform their chosen form of protest in as well-informed a manner as possible. That it is being painted as an organization with criminal intent is a complete misrepresentation; the Welcoming Committee specifically has no intention of direct action.
The preemptive arrest was surprising to everyone. It is normal in the course of civil disobedience that some people expect to be arrested. Civil disobedience is confrontational. You have to go into it knowing that there will be certain consequences. Those are the consequences of the confrontation. They are not the consequences of the possibility of future confrontation. As organizers I know Monica and Eryn weren’t planning on being arrested.
But I haven’t written this essay in anger over their arrest. Protest is conflict. The lines of conflict move, and I find this move to preemptive arrest quite troubling, but I’m also optimistic that they won’t ultimately be charged with anything. I also don’t want to slip into the protest-to-protest mode, more obsessed with the form of protest than the function of this protest. This is a frustrating turn of events, and I’m sure no one is more frustrated than the two of them — one sequestered in a jail, the other in legal limbo, at the culmination of all their work over the last year. But I didn’t write this essay out of anger but because I wanted to recognize what they’ve been doing and do my best to explain it to other people, because I’m proud of them. They are exactly the model of an engaged, ethically driven citizenry.
I see lots of comments like "this country is a fascist state!" and "this is just like Nazi Germany!" But of course this country is not those things. That’s what happens when the citizenry of a country stands down, when they look away from what’s happening right in front of them, when they ignore justice and discard empathy. This country is not those things because of Monica and Eryn and the thousands of people who will be present and paying attention when the RNC lands from on high.
To support Monica, Eryn, and the other charged members of the RNC Welcoming Committee, and also to get updates on the case and news coverage of the case, please visit rnc8.org
Ian Bicking | 02-Sep-08 at 6:11 pm | Permalink
Comment sections on articles like this can get nasty sometimes. This is my blog, and it won’t get nasty because I’ll delete those posts. Mean people have a whole internet at their disposal; this place is mine. I’ve also now deleted at least one off-topic comment; I think the quality of comments has been pretty good, and I don’t feel any need to host a simple quantity of comments.
Glyph Lefkowitz | 02-Sep-08 at 7:03 pm | Permalink
This was a thoughtful, and honestly, moving description of what’s happened to your sister and why.
I very much appreciate the fact that you have a sense of proportion and perspective on what must be a particularly disturbing series of events for you and your family.
My sincere hope is that the press coverage associated with this will advance the cause of opposition to our government’s indiscriminate use of lying, spying, torturing and killing people, both here and abroad. I don’t have any hopes for a nationwide “wake-up call”, or anything that dramatic - but I hope it will give everyone who hears this story pause, to think that people who hold beliefs only as controversial as “mass murder is wrong” to be harassed, intimidated, and arrested.
Pete Trimmer | 02-Sep-08 at 8:01 pm | Permalink
Ian,
Very well put. I am Eryn’s father and you have done an excellent job of articulating some of the complexities of these issues. I also very much appreciate your expression of the nuances of confrontation and protest.
If you have any news I’d appreciate an update. I am surfing to be informed.
Thanks,
Pete Trimmer
crashsystems | 02-Sep-08 at 8:42 pm | Permalink
Great post, certainly worth stumbling. I hope Monica and Eryn’s situation improves soon.
IMHO, as a conservative (and certainly NOT a Republican!), conservative politics are all about a minimalist government which serves the people instead of trying to suppress them, respects civil liberties and the rule of law, and stays out of the way as much as possible. This is certainly not what we have seen from the GOP, which is the thought of as the “conservative” party. They are about as far from conservative as anyone could get.
May the day come when government is small, and lets the people live in peace.
john abbott | 02-Sep-08 at 11:02 pm | Permalink
i was present for the police riot in gainesville, fl in 1973. the student paper, the alligator was able to aquire photos of plainclothes police that took part, and published them which resulted in the loss of job as the narcs could no longer do their job. the internet makes this a really good tactic, photos of under covers, and check on govt agents in plain clothes taking photos for the crowds.
Tom Usher | 03-Sep-08 at 2:31 am | Permalink
Hello Ian,
Well, I’m a Christian. As you know, people who call themselves that are usually instantly thought of as ranging from Reconstructionist and Dominionists to supporters of Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson. I don’t fall on that spectrum. Bear with me here.
You’re concerned about your sister and her boyfriend and the others and rightly so. You’ve used some excellent words, such as “empathy” and “cooperation.” You’ve openly admitted to not having the answers. That’s the tendency of a person who is basically trying to be honest.
I’ve read and thought in depth about anarchism. Tolstoy was a self-professing Christian Anarchist. I understand it, but it is an oxymoron in the final analysis.
The main issue a real Christian has with the brand of anarchy you’ve described is hypocrisy. Let me explain briefly.
You have explained that the idea isn’t to protest for protest’s sake but rather to (among other things) draw attention to the Iraq War. It was started by abject liars. You are completely right about that. However, breaking windows is coercive. It is aggressive. The point is that you don’t want others breaking your windows, so don’t do what you don’t want done to you. Take it a step further, and do to others what you want, or ought to want, done to you, which is harmlessness and better yet, beneficence.
Falling to destruction of property raises the issue of where to draw the line. Will you destroy all the buildings in the village to save it? How many windows is it okay to break? The people will only harden their hearts.
Here’s the deal. The state as it is, is not going to correct. You have said that Anarchists are good at building communities. Therefore, Anarchists, stop trying to correct the state. Go ahead and build your communities. Set the example. Turn and put all your energies into that.
I did say “harmlessness” above. That requires a concerted effort to be brutally honest with oneself.
Now, I’m against violent coercion or any other kind of forcing people against their wills, so I won’t vote or engage in coercive acts to influence the violent state to side with anything because it would just turn around and force others to do my will if it were to heed me. The only thing I can do is call upon people within the system to change their hearts, in which case, they won’t remain emotionally in that system.
The state isn’t going to transform. It isn’t going to take on a new wineskin to hold new wine or emotions. The current type of state is going to crash with billions in it. Too many Anarchists are in the roll of the Zealots of old. They want something different from what those Zealots wanted, but the Anarchists are facing the exact same crowd as did the Zealots and will meet with the same fate if the Anarchists don’t turn from violence and destruction.
The window breaking is counterproductive. It turns off many who also hate the wars and occupations: Evil imperialism.
You may not believe, but God bless you regardless.
Tom Usher
mihai | 03-Sep-08 at 3:03 am | Permalink
Maybe the March 2003 protests didn’t work because New York (the first American city on the list of cities where major protests took place) is only 12th, with an attendance of around 100,000 people. Forget the 3+ million in Rome or the 1+ million in Barcelona (they’re Latin, they like to protest), but what about the 500,000 in Berlin? And there are only 3 other major US cities in that list: LA, San Francisco and Seattle (all presumably “liberal” cities, whatever that means).
Protests do work, I think, at least in totalitarian states where the right to free speech is impeded (I’m not saying that you have a totalitarian regime in the States, but if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck…). Protests helped a lot in the fall of Communist regimes in Eastern Europe at the end of the ’80s.
Julie | 03-Sep-08 at 6:10 am | Permalink
Thanks, Ian. This is a great and thoughtful synopsis. It was really good to have a more humanist description of what anarchism means to many people. I agree completely with you about the Overton Window moving far to the right - it’s been moving that way for a while - sometimes gradually and sometimes not so.
I think that when some people throw around terms like “fascism” it is out of anger or ignorance or both. But I don’t know sometimes if that Overton Window has moved so far to the right that we don’t even recognize the subtle forms of fascism in our own society. In fact, I think there is a fascism in play and that, to me, is one of the reasons why the work that Monica and Eryn and so many other do is so important.
Do we have a fascist regime in the U.S. or a fascist country? Well, no… but… there can be a finer line than I think we sometimes realize and I do believe that “preemptive” action to prevent legal civil protest does cross that line.
Jeanetta | 03-Sep-08 at 6:40 am | Permalink
Thanks, Ian. This is very helpful. If you talk to Monica, tell her this old Quake is holding her in the Light. Grammy
Torkel | 03-Sep-08 at 7:45 am | Permalink
Great post! It’s really good to see people thinking for themselves!
“Throughout human history, as our specias has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the political, the religious, the educational authorities who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rulers, regulations, informing, forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open-mindedness; chaotic, confused, vulnerability to inform yourself.” - Intro to ‘Aenima’ a song and album from Tool, don’t know if it’s their quote or if they picked it up somewhere, but it is wise words.
A couple of years ago I also came to the conclution that I also was an anarchist when I really considered those values. But in my mind the word ‘anarchism’ was deluted. Most people recognize anarchy as a sociecty going berzerk, where citizens are killing each other in total chaos. Those terms our ‘leaders’ are afraid of is those who they delute in public. Small secrets are kept secret, big secrets are discredited and laughed at in public light.
I actually don’t like the term anarchism, because we got a better word for it. Anarchy is FREEDOM. Our society has been manipulated for ages; bit by bit they have formed our minds while we very busy looking at a carrot infront of us instead of looking at ‘the ball’. The carrot is shining infront of us these modern days. The carrot is values they feed us with no real substance. It’s our addiction to materialism, it’s our addiction to police each other, it’s our addiction to compare ‘us’ with ‘them’. We’re good at finding differences and we’re good at pointing them out and complaining about them. New bigger house, new loan with ‘no strings attached’, new car, yet another hairproduct for bald men, yet another upskirt shot of Britney Spears or another video from Paris Hilton. It has really spiked the last decades, and that’s why people are waking up. They are asking questions. This is a good sign for many reasons:
If traditional religion (I’m not against religion so I’m not trying to offend anyone, but other people use it like a tool) isn’t an effective tool enough, they’ll start new religions; Paris Hilton, materialism, etc. They also start/empower conflicts, so that we are watching eachother instead of the ball. Gay-marriage, terrorism, islam/muslims. They are enhancing different opinions amongst the population and we are focusing on them. Politics is just that; left vs. right. democrat vs republican. democracy vs communism. By utilising these techniques they are keeping us ’satisfied’, cause we are free to chose what side to stand on. This is an illusion, they are giving us alternatives to choose and by choosing amongst those alternatives we feel empowered and free, but still forgetting that those alternatives are their alternatives. This is an old strategy used by many world leaders troughout our history, it’s called ‘Divide and Conquer’.
This is why history repeats itself, we fail to learn our lessons. 99% of the population do not want war, they just want peace and harmony, still our daily lifes is filled with war and conflicts. Why? We are not talking responsability for ourselves! We are looking for comfort and they are giving it to us. They create a problem (world war 1, world war 2, vietnam, terrorism, you name it), we are reacting in fear, they come with the comforting solution.
The solution to all this is to fight ‘Conquer and Divide’, we do that by uniting. Uniting through love and not fear. I do believe it’s better to spread the concept ‘freedom’ instead of ‘anarchy’, because then the step to convertion for most people will be ’smaller’ than converting to ‘anarchism’. They’ve manipulated us on the wrong track, we can start manipulating the society back to honesty :-)
Spread the concept of love and freedom, share your opinions and engage in communication with the ‘others’. It is also important to have a clear view on how you want the world to be in the future and focus on that! Remember most of us are sheeps, looking at a carrot, waiting for comfort. We will follow whoever gives it to us.
Interessing stuff to read: - How does our banking system work? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&ei=FZS-SOHCKoGciwKowKWRCQ&q=money+as+debt - How was money used in the wars? Who financed who?
cynthia | 03-Sep-08 at 8:08 am | Permalink
I’ve landed here via a post by Emily -
I think you’ve written a terrific, well balanced and thought out essay on anarchism. I have certainly received greater insight on the topic this morning.
On a pure semantic level, the word isn’t terribly frightening, but its meaning has been appropriated by popular culture and associated with angry music, people, violence etc. (think punk music in an era of feel good, Charles Manson, white supremacists) that scares the hell out of your average insulated person. The media use the word out of context perhaps, because it makes a good story. The RNC, far right and police can use that word similarly to justify their use of force to suppress an alternative voice. I’m assuming, the Twin Cities wants to put on a good clean show as it reflects back to the world how fantastic it is.
As you’ve pointed out, alternative philosophies don’t fit neatly into our 2 party political system. I recently had a discussion with my 10 year old daughter about this year’s election and mentioned that there are more than 2 political parties in the race, unfortunately none of them has gained enough traction to make a big impact.
I would add that I think a lot of Americans are complacent and are happy to hitch their vote to a single issue - abortion, guns, religion, social programs, and race to name some of the big ones. People are afraid of change too - it requires too much mental work. At least with the status quo, a person knows what’s in store for themselves.
Now, I know this is an article about the anarchy and the absence of government, but the election season goes hand in hand.
I think protesting is a fantastic political past time because it does draw attention to alternative philosophies. It also sends a message to current political and religious leaders that not all is well and puts pressure on them to come up with answers. Granted, there will probably never be consensus in such a diverse country and unfortunately people don’t ask enough hard questions.
In regards to the war in Iraq, I’ve been thinking of the “Just War” theory lately and was reminded of a philosophy class I took in college - interesting how it developed as a way to justify protecting and expanding Christian faith. But it just gets so gray… like so much else in the world.
Things change because people express their opinions - I’ll be thinking of your sister, her boyfriend and the countless other people whose voices have been unceremoniously gagged.
Noah Gift | 03-Sep-08 at 9:22 am | Permalink
Because this is mostly a software blog, I think I will again quote Donald Knuth who asks some very valid questions:
http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/iaq.html
matt | 03-Sep-08 at 9:47 am | Permalink
I have been profoundly disturbed by the recent repressive events at the RNC.
However, everyone should be encouraged by the bravery displayed by individuals such as Monica and Eryn. Their actions embody the essence of anarchism. In an age of police and corporate repression, they have have been willing to stand up and draw a line in the sand. They have put their lives on the line. They have stuck their necks out.
So two cheers for Monica and Eryn, as well as everyone else out at the RNC. You have led by example. You have made us all proud. Thank you.
Ted Pollari | 03-Sep-08 at 10:03 am | Permalink
Ian,
I appreciate your words, as well as the effort and concern that went in to your post. I’ll admit that you and I don’t seem to see eye to eye on everything but I will say that you’ve done a good job of helping me see where another side is coming from… It seems to me that experience is something that is truly not frequent enough these days.
With that in mind, I’d offer just a little bit more. I am of a more conservative bent, more fiscally than socially, but nevertheless, I do claim some conservative labels from time to time. That having been said, I think it’s important to point out that every truly conservative bone in my body is rattled by what, at first blush, seems to be clear suppression of constitutional rights by police in my home town of St. Paul. Further, I know I’m not alone in the world of conservatives when I say that.
The truth, as I see it, seems to be that what this country is suffering from most is, in fact, an utter lack of character, vision and understanding in those in power. Sometimes it requires us to look beyond party lines or labels and attempt to see something greater; some sense of clarity of character and a willingness to be genuine and actually care about others. Sadly, personal greed and power-grabbing seems to rule rather than any sense of right and wrong or truth and falsehood — however absolute or arbitrary you feel such things to be, one must admit the difference between being driven by personal interest and some sort of concern for the greater good. Sadly there are so many clear examples of the former and so few examples of the latter as of late.
I guess what I’m trying to say at is that there’s something more than just liberal vs. conservative ideology driving this divide and I’m certainly willing to find commonalities wherever I can… and I’m betting I’m not alone in that either.
Perry | 03-Sep-08 at 10:16 am | Permalink
Great article. Thank you Tom Usher! I’ve been advocating the same thing for a few years. A friend and I have 501 C3 non-profit status and are attempting to build an intentional community in southern Indiana. The system will not change in America anytime soon. We would all be better off we formed our own communities. There are several here (Needmore, Elf Lore Family) that have succeeded. We will not be forced to pay any taxes (which is really what makes the system go), we will police ourselves for all pratical purposes, everyone would have a say in their day to day living, ect. I would HIGHLY recommend anyone interested in changing things to consider starting a 501C3. It removes many obstacles (taxes, ability to fundraise through about any means even gambling, govt can not stop you from using public lands and resources for events and fundraising, ect).
Aron | 03-Sep-08 at 1:04 pm | Permalink
Thank you for this. I find it so heartening to read a reasonable, compassionate response to what has happened. It’s true– most commenters are either mean or ineffectual. To quote a well-worn line, “The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity.” This seems especially true in the safe confines of the internet.
But people like Monica and Eryn are turning that phrase on its head, aren’t they? I have been inspired as much as outraged this week. We all need to be braver. As I told a friend of mine this week, I do believe the ship of state can right itself. However, too many of us are still wringing our hands about that high water instead of picking up a bucket. Each individual’s effort matters now more than ever.
I feel a deep sense of gratitude towards every protestor at the RNC.
Matt C. | 03-Sep-08 at 1:33 pm | Permalink
I enjoyed this post. It was insightful.
I just have a quibble. Destroying property is violence. Most anarchists believe that you have right to your self and property, at least those with whom I associate. To destroy property is an act of violence against another individual. I have every right to help you defend yourself and your property, but I have no right to help you attack another individual and/or their property.
Violence against property is described by Bastiat in his story of the broken window. There are the seen and the unseen effects of property damage.
It is unfortunate that property is attacked in such a manner, because it only emphasizes in the media’s bias the complete “lawlessness” of anarchism. Private institutions and individuals can do well enough without the government or someone else interfering in thier lives. The key words in this vision is voluntary association. Anarchism is not lawless, for we live by the laws of the right to life, liberty and property. These are natural laws that no government or indivual has the right to impede upon.
Thanks for the post.
Ted Pollari | 03-Sep-08 at 1:58 pm | Permalink
Destroying property is violence. … Violence against property is described by Bastiat in his story of the broken window. There are the seen and the unseen effects of property damage.
I fully agree — and violence against objects, even if they’re publicly owned or unowned things is frequently used to express threats of violence towards individuals or groups. Moreover, even if not intended as such, it can easily make that impression upon others who would otherwise be bystanders. Therefore, as I see it, any distinction between violence towards things or property and “genuine violence” towards people is completely synthetic.
Psychological violence can be even more damaging than physical violence and violence towards property translates easily into psychological violence towards others, property owners or not. Any attempt to justify violence and destruction in the name of protest needs to recognize it for what it is — violence. If there is reason that can be made for such actions, so be it (that’s another topic, slightly afield of what I’m driving at here), but to try and make that distinction as a way of avoiding an honest discussion of the justification of that violence seems like an intellectual dodge to me. Though I hope you don’t take offense to that, Ian — I recognize that it was a bit of an aside and not the core point of this post.
Lucille | 03-Sep-08 at 2:14 pm | Permalink
Thank you Ian, I appreciate your well thought out, patient, and diligent response to the issues at hand. As animals, we are so easily sucked into and led by our emotions such as fear that it’s often difficult to step back and view the situation with a cooler head. Frankly, the cities are under a heightened level of fear right now, what with helicopters and massive groups of law enforcement wandering around, which makes it easier for people to resort to our base emotions of fear, and anger. Your response is refreshingly well thought out, intelligent, and well written. Your blog does a great service to your family, and those involved with and around the events that are transpiring.
Thank you
Ian Bicking | 03-Sep-08 at 2:33 pm | Permalink
Taking the property damage in context, there’s nothing particularly intimidating about it, and given the isolating tactics the police use there’s seldom anyone else around that could be intimidated anyway. Also, vandalism simply isn’t violence. Sure, throwing a brick through someone’s window is violent, but the violence is a matter of intent and context, not simply damage. Nothing I’ve heard of has any shown intent beyond vandalism.
But, to get back on topic, in the case of Monica and Eryn the only property damage was the doors that the police busted in. To add insult to injury, the police were actually ready to board up the house on the morning of the raid for code violations, when the only violations they could actually describe were the broken doors.
sara remke | 03-Sep-08 at 6:27 pm | Permalink
Ian:
Thank you for your well articulated thoughts.
I wish a speedy release for your family members.
Porter | 03-Sep-08 at 8:07 pm | Permalink
Property Damage Sucks.
I live in Boston - and have seen my share of protests and riots in the face of some of the sports fans here… Cars smashed up, business windows smashed in, etc.
When you come out of your house and find your windshield smashed in, or you show up at work and find your storefront in tatters… Then tell me it’s not a form of violence. No, you’re afraid, and angry that it happened. It’s just not right. Sometimes violence can be caused by negligence, and it certainly doesn’t require intent - a failure to fully consider the consequence of an action (such as smashing a business window) doesn’t make it non-violent because it was unintentional.
In any case I’m finding that the police presence at both conventions is more than a bit heavy-handed.
Just my $0.02
Ian Bicking | 03-Sep-08 at 8:24 pm | Permalink
I think we’ve had enough discussion about property damage. Can we move on now please?
Julie | 03-Sep-08 at 8:45 pm | Permalink
Sure, I can change the subject… I appreciate your discussion on war - or this war, I guess more specifically. It’s very true that most of us don’t feel the war. It is an abstraction and I don’t think that most of us are connected to it in any real way (with maybe the exception of those who have family or friends who are there). We talk about the war, have positions regarding the war, and make decisions for others who are affected by the war everyday and in very real ways.
Is it that the war is not on our soil? Is it because we see it on television and it just becomes part of our everyday background buzz? Is it because we are not threatened personally everyday by bombs, by guns, by death everywhere?
I don’t know the answer - maybe it’s a combination of many things. It is disturbing though and there is a numbness there that is the same numbness that I feel permeates our culture. Can we be numb too to the pain, the despair, the sorrow of other human beings, to war and death and destruction?
You are very right, Ian, that it is a very dangerous numbness and disconnect. It’s not about a politics either - it’s much more base than that. It’s what really scares me about the world we live in…
Chris | 03-Sep-08 at 10:32 pm | Permalink
It seems inconsistent to me that a ‘anarchist’ would be engaging in the vandalism of private property, since anarchism is supposed to be based on freedom (i.e. property rights).
Japan IMC | 03-Sep-08 at 10:59 pm | Permalink
Thank you. I have no doubt that all of the charges are trumped up. However, one troubling video showed Sheriff Fletcher displaying a gun Now I assume they are just planting evidence,but it would be nice to get a statement to that effect. A bunch of posters on the TC IMC site and other places have just fallen for the trap and said, “so what.no big deal, guns are common in the US”. I immediately assume those people themselves are just agents provacateurs, but there are always a few more radical than thou types who think the revolution is tomorrow and just play the macho game.
So can anyone address the video. It seems it the video is allowed to stand it can hurt the movement. If there was no gun then it would be good to make it clear it is a palnt. If there was a gun, this should be admitted to save the whole movement from being brought down because of it.
The movement needs and must acknowledge the many different viewpoints that exist, but no one group should be allowed to dominate or manipulate. People should be able to choose which groups to work in adffinity to, and it is absolutely irresponsible if anyone DID have gun.
Can anyone account for the video –cannot find it now,but it has been reported here and there–> http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/node/13957
Thanks
IMC JAPAN volunteer
Sean | 03-Sep-08 at 11:51 pm | Permalink
Anarchism is most certainly not based on property rights, although most anarchists - self included - respect the right to personal property.
Usually the property targeted by protest actions is owned by multinational corporations or the political apparatus that supports them. The argument for this is that any such damage is manifest anti-violence as the very existence and practices of these corporations is in itself violent.
I can imagine that others posting here may well disagree with this type of analysis, hut do recognise that such analyses exist and are backed by evidence and theoretical history.
streamfortyseven | 04-Sep-08 at 2:41 am | Permalink
This is to the IMC JAPAN volunteer in post 27 above:
In the United States, many of the most important rights of people are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution of 1789. The First Amendment concerns itself with freedom of speech; the Second Amendment concerns itself with the right to keep and bear arms; and so on. You can read the document yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedStatesBillofRights) The Second Amendment was drawn up in times where there were no police forces, and standing armies were viewed not as the guarantors of liberty, but as a grave threat to liberty. “Standing armies” equate not only to the Armed Forces, but also to police forces as well, since they are privileged to have military weapons which no “civilian” may possess and to use those weapons in the course of their duties or in response to orders from their superiors.
The law in Japan is different than in the US - Japanese subjects do not enjoy the same rights as do US citizens. Their tradition of government comes down from a day, not long gone, when it was the right of samurai to hack people walking in the streets to bloody shreds with absolute impunity. Common people did not have the right to carry a sword or any kind of bladed weapon or use it in self-defense. Now, Japan is different, but the police still have the right to enter private homes at will and search without a warrant, and to detain and interrogate citizens for as long as they please and the citizen has no right to counsel. Japanese culture is still radically different from American culture, at least as far as individual rights are concerned.
In contrast, the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/SecondAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution) on the Second Amendment is most informative:
“The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e. “keep and bear arms”) in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents was to simply take away the people’s arms and make it an offense to keep them.[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.[4]”
In fact, one of the most famous of the Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry, stated: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. … O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; … Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? … Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?”
From our laws and tradition, it is absolutely irresponsible if a citizen does not have a gun… not the other way around, as you propose.
Ian Bicking | 04-Sep-08 at 8:23 am | Permalink
Regarding the “gun”, probably you mean the rifle barrel. It was an old rusty rifle barrel left behind by the previous owner of the home (they’d only moved into the house a couple weeks earlier). It wasn’t their rifle barrel, and a rifle barrel wouldn’t be a functional weapon regardless.
Jan | 04-Sep-08 at 10:43 am | Permalink
Ian:
cont’d
Sorry I hit the wrong button; I apparently hit the send button. Anyways, my attorneys say that many of the charges against Monica stem from the RNC Welcoming Committee website, things that are discussed in a chat room. . . can be used against people. Say you talk about doing some specific damage to property, and if someone reads that on your website and does it, you can be held responsible.
Anyway, I am concerned about her. I am trying everything I can do to make sure that you guys realize that having good legal representation is important. I left an email message for your mom and telephone message for your Dad about getting a good attorney. I wanted to make sure you are aware as well. Jerry Peterson is the attorney she should get, and the one my attorneys would refer her to. He’s absolutely brilliant. I left his phone numbers with your Mom and Dad.
Jan
bruno | 04-Sep-08 at 3:12 pm | Permalink
Hi Ian
I really hope the best for your sister and her friend. Whether you share their “strategic” choices or not, be proud of them, because they at least dare not only to think by themselves but also to stand up for freedom and peace.
With all my sympathy for your and Eryn’s families…
bruno | 04-Sep-08 at 3:39 pm | Permalink
@Tom Usher
“Falling to destruction of property raises the issue of where to draw the line”
Well, what about our Lord kicking out the merchants from the Temple then ? Not that I’m advocating violence but, as you say, where to draw the line is indeed an issue - and not a trivial one…
streamfortyseven | 04-Sep-08 at 4:29 pm | Permalink
Well, as long as we’re on the “destruction of property” issue, how many times can you recall property being destroyed in the course of a search? We’re talking walls getting kicked in, furniture having its stuffing torn out and thus ruined, personal property being deliberately destroyed (I’ve seen clothing that was pissed and shat upon by “law enforcement”). And the computers and electronic equipment taken off by the police, if it comes back at all, it comes back ruined and unusable. And the police are utterly unaccountable for their actions. And they know it and take advantage of the fact.
Anarchist property destruction pales in comparison to that committed by the State.
Mary Taylor | 04-Sep-08 at 8:34 pm | Permalink
Hey Ian, I’m writing a short article for a Japanese blog on these raids and want to use a map for effects. I’m wondering if you can tell me the address of your sister’s house or, if you feel uncomfortable about that, just a vicinity so that I can mark it(neighborhood, intersection…). I’d really appreciate it. If you want to see what I’m up to, here’s the url. http://hanareproject.net/hanaremedia/ministryofinformation/
in solidarity, Mary Taylor
McCann | 04-Sep-08 at 10:30 pm | Permalink
What has happened to your sister and the others is disgusting. What is extremely sad about this is I am not surprised by any means. We are becoming a police state more and more each day…..a thought that terrifies me. I am a believer in peace…..but I recognize that being completely passive is not bringing any change and won’t bring any change. People talk of how ridiculous it is to protest and get a little rowdy while doing so….. I want to know where the Passion has gone. Why are we so quick to accept things and side with the police…the government…as if they have always had our interest at heart. People being outraged about some windows being broken…. Where is the outrage about the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi’s. What a silly thought to be angry over a few windows when we have destroyed so much of Iraq’s country.
Japan IMC | 04-Sep-08 at 11:28 pm | Permalink
Maybe it was a rifle barrel. I saw a televised report on the net with the asshole saying he was not targeting anyone except the ones who had the stuff, not regular protestors. But definitely sound like an attempt to cuase havoc by creating the impresion of a violent left. I THOUGHT I was saw a pistol, but cannot find it so I may be mistaken. If anyone can locate the video where he is on camera and saying the above, it can be confirmed.
In any case, the idiot who talks about the 2nd amendment is likely a police troll just trying to make a bad name for the movement. I have never seen a left person advancing the arguments of the right in defending guns. In any case, we need to be careful. The police have no qualms about entering independent media and pretending to one of us.
I hope all works out well for your sister and her friend.
streamfortyseven | 05-Sep-08 at 12:33 am | Permalink
As the “idiot” who talks about the Second Amendment, I’m not a police troll. I’m a practicing criminal defense attorney, and I really don’t like it when the police abuse people’s Constitutional rights. As a matter of fact, I’ve fought illegal searches in suppression hearings, and had illegally seized evidence suppressed, which has caused the District Attorney to have to dismiss cases, or lose them. I’m not interested in being part of the “movement”. Movement people are extremely difficult and unrewarding to work with. I do what I do because I believe that the Government should be held to its part of the social contract, not because I support the “movement” or like it, or most of the people who participate in it. As for left or right, I’m neither. I’d be a Libertarian if the LP wasn’t such a bunch of corporate whores. I’ll never vote for Bob Barr. I don’t know who I’ll support. McKinney? Ron Paul? Nader? The last three, it really doesn’t matter, because the real contest is between two sides of the same coin, the Republocrats and the Demopublicans. Vote for McCain and Palin, and you’ll get more war and more taxes and less liberty; vote for Obama and that disgusting old hack Biden, and you’ll get less liberty, more war, and more taxes. Your choice: which is better?
Carrying a concealed weapon without permission from the State to do so is a crime, but the law itself is a mockery of the Constitution, as a gross infringement on the right to bear arms. A license is permission from the State to do something which the State prohibits. The states don’t have the rightful power to prohibit rights enumerated in the Constitution, but they do so nonetheless, and their standing armies stand ready to prevent and punish citizens who exercise their rights. By the way, most of the concealed weapons laws were passed in the states in the years directly following the Civil War, as an attempt to keep freed slaves from arming themselves for self-defense. During slavery, it was a capital offense for a slave to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise. I could continue, but I’m getting a bit tired of this.
Mr. Bicking, I hope you find one hell of a good attorney for your sister. She’ll need it, and your love and support. It’s going to be pretty tough for her over the next few months. Get good local counsel, someone who practices in Minneapolis/St Paul and knows the judges.
Ginger | 05-Sep-08 at 11:46 am | Permalink
Ian,
Thank you for this thoughtful essay - it is so hard to be calm and reasonable when your loved ones are in jail. I am sure a lot of people around the country are concerned about everyone arrested on these trumped-up charges and will be working to help. You just have to make the call.
I see a lot of comments have covered many of your excellent points. The one I want to focus on was fascism and the fascist state. I think that expecting that 21st century fascism will be the same as 20th century fascism is unrealistic. In fact more scholars agree that fascism in the 21st century will be different. Below is a definition of fascism from prominent scholar and expert Robert Paxton in his “Anatomy of Fascism”
”A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”
Put simply, fascism is about nationalism, unity and cleansing, expansionism, and the suppression of democratic liberties by legal and illegal means. Now we can go down the checklist and see: nationalism / patriotism - check; unity and cleansing of “undesirables” - check; military expansionism - hell YEAH; suppression of liberties - check; And as far as the means go, that is also a classic trick in the fascist book - it’s all legal, because they’ve written it in the laws. When Jews were stripped of their “citizenship” and mass murdered in Nazi Germany it was all according to the law. Of course there is the mass-base party component that at first glance seems to be lacking, but think about all the nasty comments you’ve had to delete here, and those you’ve read elsewhere - that should give you an idea about how massive and well accepted fascist thinking is in the US.
Fascism, to hear President Bush tell it, has been revived by Islamic militants. ”The terrorists are the heirs to fascism,” he has said. ”They have the same will to power, the same disdain for the individual, the same mad global ambitions. And they will be dealt with in just the same way. Like all fascists, the terrorists cannot be appeased: they must be defeated.” It’s not hard to see that the US can check all these off - the will to power, the disdain for the individual, the mad global ambitions. For once, it seems we need to agree with Bush - fascism must be defeated!
Julie | 05-Sep-08 at 1:02 pm | Permalink
I don’t know Ginger at all, but I agree with her description and assessment of contemporary fascism completely.
I also don’t think that fascism in the U.S. is a recent phenomena, but it certainly has become more overt over the last few years. I almost appreciate the fact that it’s more overt now though because you can point to actual liberties that we are being stripped of (whether they are legal or not) while in the past, the fascism has been more subtle, at least to the general public. And the “general public” should and needs to be aware of fascism in order to have a response or be responsive to others’ responses (like Monica and Eryn). Otherwise the actions of protesters are written off as actions by some “radicals” or others instead of people self-identifying with their cause. That self-identification by ordinary people or the “general public” is an important part of the process towards any revolution or change.
I actually feel like there were many people who DID relate to what the protesters were doing in St. Paul. There will always be a segment of people who won’t get it, but it is encouraging when more people relate to the actions of protesters.
Aristotle Pagaltzis | 06-Sep-08 at 4:49 am | Permalink
Ian, I don’t want to drop a bucket of ice water on you, but this statement gives me pause:
> But of course this country is not those things. That’s what happens when the citizenry of a country stands down, when they look away from what’s happening right in front of them, when they ignore justice and discard empathy.
Do you seriously believe that no one in Nazi Germany or fascist Italy protested the transgressions of those governments? Do you actually think that the entire population in those countries docily turned away their eyes and let things happen? In both cases you would be mistaken. You would also be mistaken that to believe that there was not a large part of the population that recognised what was going on and grumbled about it, but did not take confrontational action. There were in fact many that did not condone what was happening, and a fraction of the citizens were outraged enough to form activist groups.
Sure sounds like the USA today, doesn’t it?
Hudson Luce | 06-Sep-08 at 9:40 pm | Permalink
Aristotle is right. Only a little more than a third of the German voting population voted for the coalition government which included and was controlled by the Nazis. The Nazis fought street battles with the Communists, street battles fought with rifles and machineguns, by the way. This had been going on since 1919, with the Freikorps being the progenitors of the Nazi Party Sturmabteilung. The Communists, Anarchists, and Socialists had the support of a third of the population, and the rest were Monarchists, Social Democrats, and so on. The process by which the Nazis consolidated their power occurred over the next year, from January 30, 1933 (the “sneaking into power”) to August 2, 1934, referred to as the Gleichabschaltung.
Before this, the Social Democratic government of the Weimar Republic had been transformed by Paul von Hindenburg in the period from 1925 to 1932 to a more authoritarian government, following the disastrous hyperinflation which occurred in 1923, and the attempt at a seizure of power which resulted in the failed Putsch of 1924, which got Adolf Hitler sent to Landsberg Prison. The Nazis formed a coalition government with the DNVP with Franz von Papen as Reichs Chancellor in 1933, which held a narrow majority in the Reichstag. This lasted until the Enabling Acts were passed in 1933, after which the DNVP were disposed of.
In 1933, when political parties other than the Nazis were banned, the Nazis had 43.9% of the seats in the Reichstag, the Social Democratic Party (a liberal/socialist party) had 18.3%, the Communist party had 12.3%, the Centre party (another liberal party) had 11.2%, the DNVP had 8.0%, and the BVP (another liberal party) with 2.7%, with the remaining 3.5% split amongst five minor parties. The Nazis (43.9%) formed a coalition with the DNVP (8.0%) to get 51.9% of the votes in the Reichstag. After the Enabling Acts were passed following the Reichstag fire of 1933, the Nazis were able to achieve their aims legally, with the full force of legitimate government behind them.
There was some fairly significant resistance to the Nazis in the period 1933 to 1945, including the famed White Rose group. The Nazis dealt with resistance brutally, usually sentencing those caught to slow strangulation with piano wire, which in many cases resulted in decapitation. This is what happened to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the theologian and philosopher. In all, 77,000 Germans were killed by execution resisting the Nazis.
The Nazis were very popular, in Germany and in the US, too. A group called the German-American Bund had a parade in New York City in 1939 with 20,000 participants, and Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford (founder of the Ford Motor Company and author of “The International Jew”) received the Iron Cross from Hermann Goering and other prominent Nazis. (Lindbergh and Ford pages 284-289)
So it was a lot closer in Germany than you might be led to believe. In the US, we have the so-called “Two Party System”, where the Republicans seem to be for more war, less freedom and more taxes, and the Democrats seem to be for more taxes, less freedom, and more war, at least from their voting records over the past few years. There is a smattering of minor parties, such as the Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Socialist, Green, and Reform parties, but these are more the butt of jokes in the national press than actual political parties that get votes and seats in any legislative assembly, Federal or State. We have our own version of the Enabling Acts (the USA PATRIOT Act, and the numerous Omnibus Crime bills that have been passed in the last 20 years) and there is some not-well-reported-upon resistance to this (The Bill of Rights Defense Committee) which has been effectively marginalized by the national press.
Recently, the Senate passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 on July 9 (also known as H.R. 6403) by a margin of 41 votes, with 69 Senators voting for the bill and 28 Senators voting against. This bill, which is now law, effectively legalized the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program and granted immunity to the telecommunications companies that broke the law. Senator Barack Obama voted for this bill. Another brick in the wall… (see)
Tom Juntti | 07-Sep-08 at 9:49 am | Permalink
I too wish to congratulate you on writing so clearly under great stress–exraordinary.
I agree that the United States is not Nazi Germany. Six million Jews have not been exterminated, but as you note 600,000 Iraquis have.
A few years ago I started receiving email from my evangelical Christian relatives inveighing against the “towel heads.” I fear these people believe that the United States is the new Zion and they are God’s chosen people. They feel that God has directed the United States as a theocracy to war against the Arabs much in the manner that the Bible says the Jews did against the Caananites, Amorites, etc. They also believe the Jews are also God’s chosen people and are strong supporters of Isreal.
George Bush’s rhetoric ant actions make me believe he is a member of this group. Barack Obama doesn’t appear to be an evangelical Christian; however, recently he said, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
Here’s your new context for political repression and national agression; it’s as old as the Bible.
eddie | 07-Sep-08 at 8:18 pm | Permalink
‘democracy’ does mean ‘the power and sovereignty to the masses’. I don’t believe we have reached a point where ‘democracy’ really exist here. Not with ‘democrats’ and ‘republicans’. Not with ‘free speech zones’ and ‘preventive wars’ and ‘preventive detentions’. We still need to learn what ‘democracy’ really is, and it is not related to jail anarchists to let rich people rule the country. The very people who control the weapon and oil business.
You cannot hide the fact that we don’t live in a democracy down the carpet for a long time. When you start killing civil liberties (and foreign people, and your own army) you are feeding a wraith and impotence. That is dangerous and counterproductive, but it is the only hope I can find to expect a real ‘democracy’ in the US. One which is not driven by the riches and their corporations
Julian Morrison | 08-Sep-08 at 6:14 am | Permalink
I imagine there are plenty of things to be had from a protest besides victory - the moral obligation to show resistance, the personal experience of standing up for what’s right - but that’s all you’ll get. This is not a game you can win, because it’s not a human game at all, it’s a tribal monkey game called “uppity low-rankers versus the unpopular alpha’s henchmen” and you are playing the scripted loser. Three billion years of ancestors won’t back down lightly. If need be, the whole tribe’s resources will be - unthinkingly, by otherwise sane people - poured into forcing you to lose. Protest really is total war writ small, and the only reason they don’t deploy thermonukes is because they expect you to lose to batons.
This isn’t really a moral thing. Both sides are playing scripted roles. Neither side is thinking like a human. The police might be nice people when they aren’t being ridden by evolution. They probably suffer huge cognitive dissonance at the inhumane things they remember enjoying doing. (Cf: the Stanford prison experiment.)
The human question would be: can I change the script such that I’m the winner? And the answer is yes. If you can move those alphas into being deposed has-beens, then evolution will turn and rend them. An ex-alpha monkey loses confidence, status, henchmen, friends, he even gets physically weedy. The tribe becomes his enemy. Evolution wants to make darn certain he stays down. How to turn alphas into ex-alphas? Party politics can at least throw them out. That leaves them choosing between a rematch, or retirement. If you can both eject them and move the Overton window, they will despair.
So: although party politics and opinion-forming look like slow games, they are in fact the winning move.
Jake | 08-Sep-08 at 8:44 am | Permalink
Property damage is violence, especially to a principled anarchist. An individual cooperating with others, traded a part of their life to create or acquire said property. Aggression that another individual commits against said property is a grievous crime, though clearly putatively the two acts should be handled differently.
If you are speaking about so called ‘public’ property, that has been acquired through theft and coercion it may be a different issue entirely.
Jeff Hammel | 08-Sep-08 at 10:35 am | Permalink
Sorry to hear about your sister, Ian. I hope that the outcome is what it should be — all ridiculously-accrued charges dropped.
As far as anarchism goes, being a former teenage anarchist (who never was one for destroying things just to destroy them), I usually use an informal definition of anarchism something like: “[A type of] anarchism is the belief that people are capable of self-government and self-autonomy without the need for formal oversight. Interaction between peoples should be as peers with respect for autonomy, not with one having prescribed authority over the other. Since all authority is taken and not bestowed, it is not incorrect to say that society is a state of anarchy with power being (often wrongfully) seized by that which we call governments, but there is nothing special about this notion of authority save that it is the de facto common notion.”
When I was younger, I was wont to say, “When I believe in people, I am an anarchist. When I don’t, I’m a nihilist.”
Now I’m a nihilist, which explicitly believes that existing power structures should be [selectively] destroyed. Anarchism doesn’t say anything per se about anti-authoritarianism, though it is a strong part of the culture.
I’m pro-anarchist and pro-nihilist in sentiment and think that both of these terms have suffered from the same stigmas as “communist” and “socialist”. The fact is, things aren’t right. If you accept that, then those that go against the grain should be supported in their right to do so. Spray-painting anarchy symbols doesn’t mean anything, politically. Participating in the RNC riot? That does.
Thank you, Monica Bicking and everyone else, for standing up for all of our rights!
Ian Bicking | 08-Sep-08 at 11:04 am | Permalink
Revisiting property damage: per my update, apparently there was almost no property damage. All this discussion for nothing!
It does, however, show how easy it is for the police to use exaggeration and lies to confuse the situation and distract debate.
Now I hope we can really stop the discussion of property damage, as it has no relation to this situation. (And thanks to all the people who have written on the other more important subjects here!)
novalis | 08-Sep-08 at 11:39 am | Permalink
I’m bothered by the following passage from the RNC Welcoming Committee’s site:
Tier Two: Immobilize the delegates’ transportation infrastructure, including the busses that are to convey them.
Tier Three: Block the five western bridges connecting the Twin Cities.
It seems to me that if we’re blocking people from traveling based on their political views (Tier Two), we’re not respecting their individual right to self-determination. Even worse is to do so arbitrarily — merely because they’re in the wrong city ar the wrong time (Tier Three).
If protesters happen to be using the streets and thus cause traffic delays, I’m not a bit bothered, any more than I am if sports fans cause traffic jams near Shea Stadium on game days. But to intentionally block people from going somewhere to hear and make speeches can’t possibly be justified by the (non-criminal) content of those speeches.
This project of blocking the streets was advertised on the RNC Welcoming Committee’s front page. Arrests are not preemptive if a crime has already taken place; conspiracy to commit crimes is a crime; and blocking streets (which the RNC Welcoming Committee conspired to do) is a crime.
Note: lest I be misconstrued, the above is not an endorsement of any specific police tactics in any arrests; nor any of the later arrests; nor the general militarization of police. I’m just less bothered by the early arrests than most people with my politics are.
Ian Bicking | 08-Sep-08 at 12:38 pm | Permalink
Speaking generally to the free speech argument: speech occurs everywhere. If you limit yourself to things that could not possibly hinder someone’s ability to speak in their preferred venue at their preferred time, you could not take any action. I still fail to see a situation in which anyone’s ability to speak could have been meaningfully restricted by the protesters. Also, I believe intention is important, and I haven’t seen any indication that there was an intention to suppress Republican speech through the protest. Many intentions have been expressed around the protests, and that simply isn’t one of them.
Ted Sbardella | 08-Sep-08 at 3:10 pm | Permalink
Thanks for the article. I feel for you as a brother. I have sisters as well. It is interesting because it is sort of like she was thepiratebay.org of the whole thing. While not actually protesting or infringing she was like a facilitator. In some ways more dangerous. She was involved in the c&c. You know your article pointed out how little difference or how similar what your sister was involved with to some of the “terrorist” cell organization going on in Iraq. Not much different really sort of like one group makes falafel and the other macrobiotic salad. I still find it hard to understand that they were not expecting to be arrested. I mean they were trying to steal from the RNC - maybe not money - but time and energy. That is the way I see it. it is like selling drugs - people want drugs people want drugs to be legal just like they want it to be legal to get out and stop the RNC from being arround - but drugs and whatever she did to prevent civil discourse are not - so in a way it is like your sister was selling drugs or a false hope or belief and well it caught up with her. She would do better to sell cell phones or to manage an Arby’s than to deal the drug that is pure anger.
Ed Singleton | 08-Sep-08 at 3:32 pm | Permalink
Just wanted to express general support both for your sister and for your comments on comments.
The world would be a better place if more people agitated. And the internet would be a better place if more people left comments that highlighted the good of what they had read, not the bad.
james | 08-Sep-08 at 6:17 pm | Permalink
Thanks for this post. Its nice to read a sane and coherent essay on the reasons for the protest and the intentions of the Welcoming Committee. Supporting your sis and the RNC 8.
Hudson Luce | 09-Sep-08 at 3:52 pm | Permalink
In response to Mr Sbardella’s response: You’re crazy. Political protest isn’t like “selling drugs or a false hope or belief”. Political groups do blockades all the time - how about Operation Rescue blockading abortion clinics, or people manning a picket line while on strike? Picket lines are legally protected, by the way, and they’re designed to interfere with the continuance of business at the location of the picket line. Ian’s sister has just as much right to help in protesting the Republican National Convention by putting a picket line around it and wasting the “time and energy” of the delegates, as trade union people do by picketing businesses while on strike and making an effort to cut into their income, or as Operation Rescue has by blocking people from going into abortion clinics and trying to shut them down.
References:
Ian | 09-Sep-08 at 4:11 pm | Permalink
Just got linked over here from Ars Technica. Not sure there’s much I can add to this discussion, except to lend my support to your sister and her boyfriend, and to thank you for this post; I’ve not read a more in-depth discussion of the principles of anarchism, and your analysis of current events in our country and the role of protest is well-reasoned and spot-on.
vanessa | 11-Sep-08 at 3:35 pm | Permalink
awesome post, thanks for taking the time to put these thoughts together so cogently. hope your sis is doing alright.
Tom Usher | 11-Sep-08 at 5:59 pm | Permalink
Well, bruno, the Temple was held out as the house of prayer and the house of God and not the house of commerce or capitalists. Jesus was violating nothing by cleaning it of those who refused to obey the real rules within. It was a house clearly demarcated in Jesus’s view. I concur with him.
Furthermore, no one within is dragged in or coerced to enter under Jesus’s rules. In fact, at the time, the so-called great unwashed were rather despised and barred from entering very far, if at all. That is something Jesus clears up. Anyone may enter a sinner and remain provided he or she is undergoing transformation to righteousness.
What is the street on which one finds store windows and bank windows? It is a different universe completely. It is the street of capitalism.
If it is proper to destroy rather than to convert, then total war is totally proper and we ought to get on with it. That, however, is satanic and was, and remains, rejected by the Christ spirit.
Of course, the world is not to remain a place where the ignorance that is capitalism is to last.
The issue is one of means and ends. Jesus did not use the means of the capitalists when he cleaned the Temple. He harmed no one. Not one person innocent of violating the rules of the voluntary house was as much as bent over. Consider it. They didn’t put him on trial for harming anyone when he cleaned the Temple of the selfish, thieving, moneychangers.
God bless,
Tom Usher
Tom Usher | 11-Sep-08 at 6:42 pm | Permalink
To All,
Concerning Chris | 03-Sep-08 at 10:32 pm and Jake | 08-Sep-08 at 8:44 am:
On the issue of property, it was the monarchists who stole the Commons from the whole people. The Commons was and still is the rightful inheritance of all. The only tragedy about the Commons is the theft of the Commons by force of arms by evil people who converted the inheritance of others into so-called private property. Don’t be duped by the capitalists masquerading as anarchists. There is no such thing as an anarcho-capitalist or libertarian capitalist for that matter. The concepts are irreconcilable. The terms are oxymoronic.
Blessings,
Tom Usher
streamfortyseven | 11-Sep-08 at 9:10 pm | Permalink
@Tom Usher: Jesus didn’t use fraud or deception to run the moneychangers out of the Temple; he used force, by overturning their tables, scattering their goods, their weights and measures and scales, their accounting papyri and ink, and driving them out with a whip. It could well be assumed that he was physically capable of doing some serious ass-kicking, since by trade he was a carpenter, not one of the more bookish types hanging around the Sanhedrin.
He ended up getting crucified about a week later, for claiming that he was the Messiah (you know, the “this is my Father’s House” statement). The Romans knew full well about conspiracy, the sub rosa thing, but in the case of Jesus preferred to hand the matter over to the Sanhedrin. If they’d gone ahead and shipped Jesus off to Rome to be tried, it might have become an even greater cause celebre than actually happened, well, quicker, anyway. The Roman authorities, along with the Sanhedrin, did their best to sweep things under the rug, and inasmuch as the great majority of Jesus’ followers were illiterate, this was successful for the most part.
What drove the Romans nuts about the Christians is that they had no hierarchy, no leaders, no temple, and they shared their goods in common, they would not swear by Jupiter or by Saturn or otherwise make a good oath in court, and they tended to slack off because they had the idea that the world was ending soon. Romans thought that Christians were atheists, which was a capital offense. The “no hierarchy, no leaders” thing went totally against the Roman culture which depended on leaders and hierarchy which could be subverted, corrupted, or at least co-opted. The bit about “no temple” is obvious - no Roman would be caught dead on a feast day anywhere else than at the temple, whooping it up, getting drunk, engaging in orgies, and having a good time. On the other hand, the Christians had no feast days, did not go to a meeting place one day a week and have ceremonies and rituals - but they did meet on irregular occasions in the catacombs and sewers. No civilized Roman would have anything to do with this kind of nonsense. …
@Tom Usher with regard to private property: Private property has been with us since the dawn of written history. The earliest clay tablets found in Sumer, some 5000 years back, are records of private property belonging to an individual; some of these records are records of land ownership, which could conceivably have begun with the advent of agriculture in 10,000 BC or thereabouts.
I’ll supply references if they’re asked for.
streamfortyseven | 11-Sep-08 at 9:11 pm | Permalink
As to the existence of a “commons” - that did exist from the dawn of written history, in those places where the default owner was the king. This was especially true in cases where livestock herding was combined with the growing of grain and vegetables. Land not suitable for agriculture was set aside as grazing land, and when villages and towns began to form, this grazing land became commons. Commons began to disappear from the scene in the 1870s and were fully gone by the 1930s, at least in most Western societies, replaced by such things as “parks”, where activities were highly regulated and grazing was forbidden.
bruno | 22-Sep-08 at 5:39 am | Permalink
@Tom Usher
You wrote : “Falling to destruction of property raises the issue of where to draw the line”. I you re-read Luke XIX (IIRC), you’ll notice that our Lord did exactly that : destructing properties.
Not that I take it as (nor imply it is) an approval of violence and destruction in any way. Just that, whatever your arguments, “where to draw the line” is indeed an issue - and one that’s not that easy to solve. Jesus did not restrict it’s action to building communities - he also engaged in public “protest” actions, eventually - that is, in at least one occasion - using force and destroying properties.
Once again, I don’t mean it as a legitimation of violence and destruction - I certainly share a good part of your POV on this. But MVHO is that clearly, building communities, while indeed necessary, is not enough - you (we) also have to engage in public actions (protests etc) to denounce lies. And the fact is that when engaging in such actions, you will have to deal with violence (your own included) whether you like it or not.
Not a simple problem, indeed…
Tom Sturgeon | 22-Sep-08 at 7:52 am | Permalink
Your post was very interesting to read.
I probably disagree with you on just about everything.
However, I am against protest zones and other such shenanigans.
People have a natural right to protest and speak in the public space, and this right is affirmed in the First and Tenth amendments.
It seems that traditionally lawful forms of protest have been outlawed. Obviously, people who would normally protest peacefully no longer have the option and are lashing out.
Perhaps violence is becoming the only viable option for some, since Constitutional protections are being rendered irrelevant.
Like I said, I probably disagree with you on just about everything, but I would like to meet you in a public space and engage in free speech.
streamfortyseven | 22-Sep-08 at 8:57 am | Permalink
interestingly enough, the original post by “Tom Sturgeon” seems to have disappeared, to be replaced by the (quite different) one above: “There is a new comment on the post “On the RNC, Monica Bicking, Eryn Trimmer, and Protest”. http://blog.ianbicking.org/2008/09/02/on-the-rnc-monica-bicking-eryn-trimmer-and-protest/
Author: Tom Sturgeon Comment: Your post was very interesting to read. I probably disagree with you on just about everything. However, I am against protest zones and other such shenanigans. People have a natural right to protest and speak in the public space, and this right is affirmed in the First and Tenth amendments.”
The lines above are the same as in the (apparently) edited version. The lines below have changed. They were:
“On the other hand, people who block traffic, break things and engage in discourteous behavior should be sprayed with pepper spray, water cannons and/or beaten with nightsticks. If they are damaging property or threatening others, they should be shot.”
They are now:
“It seems that traditionally lawful forms of protest have been outlawed. Obviously, people who would normally protest peacefully no longer have the option and are lashing out.
Perhaps violence is becoming the only viable option for some, since Constitutional protections are being rendered irrelevant.
Like I said, I probably disagree with you on just about everything, but I would like to meet you in a public space and engage in free speech.”
This is quite a change in direction. I wonder what brought it about. Mr Sturgeon, could you explain?
beto | 27-Sep-08 at 12:00 am | Permalink
Thank you, Ian, for your analysis. You gave a much better analysis for what I feel in my heart than I myself could articulate, about my identification as an anarchist and my reasons for traveling to St. Paul.
I had the “pleasure” of attending the protests, and doing regional and local work in the lead up time, including some work with the WC (although Monica was one of the few organizers I never meet). To paraphrase what you said about your sister’s motivations above, whether or not it is obvious, we created community. My best friends for the past 5 months, who lived several hours away, were introduced to me during a consulta; organizing built and strengthened a lot of ties within the local anarchist community– hell, a lot of us were pretty isolated from the good work that has been going on, and RNC organizing brought us together. Even during the protests, I met a lot of good people from all over the country who I have stayed in contact with. Honestly, despite the police violence, despite being arrested and harassed by police, despite all the bad things, my life is so inconceivably better because of the RNC protests, and largely that is because of the tireless work done by Monica and the others in the WC. The feelings of empowerment, and freedom, and community and love and friendship forged in the streets were just so great that it was difficult to return to “normal” life.
Best of luck to Monica and Eryn, as well as to the other 6 and to Dave and the other 800 still facing charges. Monica should know that whatever sacrifices and hardships she has endured and will continue to face are not in vain. She and her comrades have forever changed my life and the lives of countless others.