Celebrate MAYDAY 2010 in Grand Rapids! May 1st in Martin Luther King Jr. Park. To include: Community Potluck, Hip Hop Artists, Bands, Speakers, Kids Activities…

Performances by: Euphoria, Kelly O’Brien and the Bridge Street Special, Jihad Islam, Pain and Glory, Organel Williams and the Bottom Line Band, Alexis…

Participating organizations: Grand Rapids Hip Hop Coalition, The Bloom Collective, Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy, League of Revolutionaries for a New America, Workers Solidarity Alliance, Lansing Workers Center, Black Autonomy Network Community Organization, Grand Rapids IWW, United States Social Forum…

More artists and organizations to be announced!

If your organization would like to participate or you are a musical artist contact:
grandrapidsstarbucksunion@yahoo.com
616-881-5263

Grand Rapids and Chicago were the leading cities of the original MAYDAY. In 1886, 7,000 furniture workers of the Knights of Labor left their workplaces for an impromptu march for the eight-hour work day on May 1st. (see a ribbon from the Grand Rapids 1886 May Day).

In many cases, this can be beautiful. In a well-functioning collective, issues are discussed respectfully, the direction of the collective is decided by the members, and the decisions reached by the group are acceptable to all members. Collectives often use consensus process (basically a method of reaching a decision, see this page for more info) to guide discussion and decision making. Beyond that, great care is taken to ensure that members are doing an equal share of the work and—perhaps more importantly—that people are being taught the skills necessary to do the work. Even when there are problems, collectives (in theory at least) can address these in a caring and compassionate manner.

Just as there are an almost infinite variety of collective projects, there are numerous ways to run collectives. What works for one collective may not work for another, and vice-a-versa.

Unfortunately, while this all sounds great, most collectives at some point go through rather difficult internal conflicts. This can be due to any number of reasons: differences in strategy and tactics, individuals holding disproportionate amounts of power, male supremacy, or even outright betrayal of the collective and its principles (to name just a few of the most common). In many cases, these problems tend to disrupt the work of the collective (if not destroy it all together). While it is important to remember that there is no reason to think a collective must last forever (for example, once a project succeeds at a given goal, why keep it going if it doesn’t make sense to? Or similarly, why keep a failed project going?)—internal conflicts can often cause considerable strain on collectives.

A new book by AK Press titled Come Hell or High Water: A Handbook on Collective Process Gone Awry examines these conflicts and offers collectives—or individuals either looking to start a collective or those who are scorned by their involvement in poorly functioning collectives—advice on how to work through some of these problems. AK Press has published an excellent interview with the authors of Come Hell or High Water that looks at the motivation for writing the book.

A brief excerpt from the interview follows:

Q: I know people that think they just couldn’t function in collectives. It’s partly a fear of the interpersonal demons being unleashed (read the book for more on that!), a worry that their own vision would be lost if they aren’t firmly in control, and a sense that as an individual the institution would be stifling. How would you respond to someone who feels that collectives are great in theory but for someone else?

DV: I’ve heard people say that competitiveness is a natural human characteristic and that it’s naive or utopian to think that people can set aside their egos in order to work collaboratively. But I think that what human traits are “natural” (or somehow innate, or whatever) can be debated ad nauseum with no resolution, and it’s really not relevant. People have choices, and they can choose to be open and receptive even if it isn’t what they are used to. It’s only a matter of giving the process a chance, and one might be surprised at how well it can work. Our book focuses on the seamy underside of collectives, but the bright side shines though when strangers come together with good will and put forth genuine effort. And it happens all the time.

RS: I’m not sure what you mean here by “firmly in control.”  Do you mean of the group or of themselves?

[AK Press: Of themselves, their own personal agency.]

RS: If they think that they need to be personally in control of the group or its agenda…  Well, then, I have to ask what kind of vision they are pursuing.  If they have any vision for a nonhierarchical society, or at least a more fair and democratic one, then it makes no sense to want to be in control of other people.

If the question is whether they can be in control of themselves as individuals, I would say that a genuinely egalitarian collective creates more space for every person to have a say and be in control of her or his individuality than any more traditional, hierarchical group.  The complaints that I’ve been making about collectives have been mainly about their not being advanced enough as collectives.

Admittedly, sometimes there is a sort of balancing act in terms of how much to listen to an individual vs. the word of the collective.  This is dealt with somewhat in a chapter in the book, and it’s an issue that I’ve a put lot of thought into personally.  However, if it’s a matter of the traditional, hierarchical group vs. the collective, I would say that if people are really following the principles they say they’re following, then there is much more individuality possible within a collective.

Read the rest of the interview on AK Press’ blog.

Last week, we posted a few items about anti-Olympic protests in Vancouver (read more: here and here). In the past week, a few really good analyses have been published online that look at the politics behind the organizing and evaluate the effectiveness of the tactics being employed. They range from discussions of how specific actions functioned (i.e. how the black bloc was able to destroy property in the middle of such a militarized city) to how anarchists incorporated their politics into the organizing. The depth and range of the analysis has been impressive, especially given how recently the actions occurred.

I have been particularly impressed by the writings coming from The Friendly Fire anarchist collective out of the Bay Area as part of their “Beneath the Snow” blog covering the protests. An excerpt from one of the articles (“Day 3 – Heart Attack”) makes for an interesting read with valuable insight on the organizing and message of the protests:

Angry Bystander: “You don’t have the support of the public”

Calm Anarchist: “We are the public”

From yesterday’s anarchist presence in the “family friendly” Take Back Our City march directed against the Olympic opening ceremonies to this morning’s anarchist-organized Heart Attack directed at blocking road access to the first day of Olympic games, the anarchists and especially black bloc contingent have been a strong force of resistance here in the Unceded Coast Salish Territory. That’s often true at such convergences. What’s especially striking here, though, is how disciplined and strategically–even politically–effective they’ve been, and how much respect they’ve earned through their organizing efforts leading up to this point as well as their actions on the streets.

Much of this is likely due to the fact that anarchists have been a big part of organizing efforts toward this convergence for years now, and have been doing lots of public outreach, popular education, and even press conferences, not to mention direct actions. They’ve also created a space, through a “diversity of tactics” strategy that reaches outward while retaining its anticapitalist stance, for genuine ties of friendship and solidarity beyond anarchists, to others who share concerns for a just world. Many of the anarchist organizers here on the ground in Vancouver and nearby cities have long been working in collaboration with nonanarchists on everything from tent cities to No One Is Illegal–on issues that impact people’s daily survival needs. Many also “came of anarchist age” through the anticapitalist movement of movements, and are utilizing lessons from that to build and perhaps expand on past successes as well as go beyond past mistakes. And they are acting and organizing in concert with others, premised on daily issues that impact people’s lives and their communities–communities of which many anarchists here are also a part (poor, people of color and indigenous, queer and women, among others). Finally, they seem to have been willing to work out a balance within the various political events here, where during yesterday’s Take Back Our City march the anarchists followed the lead of others, so to speak, and today, some of those nonanarchist folks joined the anarchists for their more militant Heart Attack direct action, as part of this anticolonial and anticapitalist convergence.

These are some impressions, at least, from an outsider perspective. But as an “U.S.” anarchist, it’s been striking to witness what appears to be cooperation and solidarity of a genuine character between anarchists, justice types, nonprofit types, and others, in a way that’s ensuring that all the components form a far more powerful whole, and probably far beyond this particular convergence. At the same time, interestingly, the message here overall remains radical.

Additionally, a report titled “Riot 2010” by the CrimethInc collective also offers some valuable insights. Among them:

This was not “just another summit”—this was the culmination of several years of direct action by indigenous people, anarchists, anti-poverty activists, environmentalists, and others against the 2010 Olympics. One of the most inspiring aspects of this convergence was the framework that created it. Unlike many summits, which lack an anti-racist and anti-colonial analysis, indigenous sovereignty and decolonization was front-and-center this time. Indigenous people called upon their allies to help defend their territory against further colonization, and solidarity activists answered that call. An anti-capitalist analysis permeated the entire movement and it was a radicalizing force among the broader activist community. This was not a showdown in which local issues were left on the back burner; as far as the authors know, this was the first summit in North America that was entirely focused on local issues.

Hopefully, these analyses—and those yet to come—will contribute to how anarchists organize convergences in the future. Something was certainly done “right” in Vancouver and we should collectively build on that experience.

Nick Griffin During His Days With The National Front. Note the "White Power" T-Shirt.

Nick Griffin—a member of the British National Party (BNP) and a longtime figure on the racist right—was scheduled to speak at Michigan State University (MSU) on February 18. The talk—booked as part of a brief tour of the United States

that would take Griffin from Lansing to Washington, DC for speaking engagements at colleges and the white supremacist American Renaissance conference (as well as the more mainstream Conservative Political Action Conference)—would have been the second time that Griffin spoke at Michigan State University.

Back in 2007, Nick Griffin spoke at MSU—or rather tried to as his talked was repeatedly disrupted by anti-racist protestors. Griffin’s talk was attended by a various white supremacists active on the online message board Stormfront and who have organized racist events across Michigan. In 2007, Griffin was brought by the student group Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), a group who routinely brought racist speakers over its two-year history.

As was the case with the 2007 talk, this week’s talk was organized by an MSU student organization. This time it was named Sons of Liberty, but it seems to function similarly to YAF. Like YAF, Sons of Liberty advertised for Nick Griffin’s talk on white supremacist websites, with “President and Founder” of the group Jordan Zammit posting press releases about the event on the American Renaissance website.

However, the event was cancelled yesterday after anti-racists across the country successfully organized to cancel speaking engagements at Kenyon College in Ohio and at the American Renaissance conference in DC. In a statement announcing the cancellation, Sons of Liberty president Jordan Zammit wrote:

“The event was cancelled because left-wing agitators caused other organizations to cancel their own events that featured Griffin, and it could not be justified for Griffin to fly to the U.S. to only speak at MSU and at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.”

It’s proof that confronting racists wherever they try to organize can win results.

Not surprisingly, Twin Cities area and federal law enforcement officials failed to see the humor in the video and it was used to further claims that anarchists were violent extremists. Such claims would be the basis for extensive infiltration of the RNC Welcoming Committee and would eventually lead to terrorism charges against eight anti-RNC organizers (now referred to as the RNC 8).

The RNC 8—who will finally go to trial later this year—has produced another satirical video titled “We’re Getting Ready… For Court” that highlights the anarchists’ legal preparations:

The original video—“We’re Getting Ready” from 2007—is featured below:

Also a nice article about the protest

Even before the official start of the protests later today, autonomous protests have already taken place with protestors repeatedly delaying and blocking the Olympic torch’s progress through Vancouver. These protests were proceeded by two days of workshops and discussions held as part of a “People’s Summit” against the Olympics. In addition, the Olympics have been met by street art campaigns, a published newspaper opposing the games, and numerous protests in the months and years leading up to the games. All of this work is built on years of anti-colonial and anti-capitalist organizing against the Olympics in Vancouver (it’s also worth noting that much of this organizing has been met by repression ranging from harassment of organizers to detentions of international activists crossing the border).

For up to the minute coverage of the anti-Olympic protests, check out:

• http://2010.mediacoop.ca/

• http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca

For a good overview of the protests, check out this recent report from Vancouver:

To commemorate the anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a group of “activists”—progressives, those who protested the war back in 2003, and lifelong radicals—decide to organize a march in downtown Grand Rapids. The day is what some might describe as a “perfect” day for a protest—the sun is shining and it is unseasonably warm for a Saturday in March.

The protest attracts the largest crowd to an anti-war protest in months. There are signs indicting the war, drawing attention to the staggering death toll, and highlighting the ongoing crime of occupation. The protest is held on a plaza next to the Federal Building (which houses the offices of U.S. Senators and Representatives) and near several banks—a perfect location to highlight some of those forces responsible for the war. However, despite the intent of the organizers—nobody really sees the protest. Downtown is essentially a ghost town and only the police watch as several speakers denounce the war.

Following the speakers, a representative from one of the groups sponsoring the rally announces that there will be a march. The assembled crowd begins to walk around the block—past the federal building, the banks, the local newspaper, and other institutions connected to the war. The march sticks to the sidewalk and marchers converse with each other, while the occasional chant echoes off the empty buildings.

After the march, people pack up and go home. There is little or no coverage of the march on the news, nobody in power hears the message, and essentially nothing is changed.

II.

A few years later, another group looks at past marches against the Iraq War and concludes that something different must be done. The group decides on an ambitious plan and holds the protest several miles out of the downtown area. Nobody aside from the organizers really know the plan, yet thanks to intensive advertising efforts, a few hundred people turn out.

After waiting a few minutes, a spokesperson for the group announces that the march will be leaving for the home of U.S. Representative Vern Ehlers—a Congressman who has been an ardent supporter of the Iraq War. The march is led by several banners—“U.S. Out of Iraq,” “Stop Funding War,” and “Stop U.S. Imperialism.” As the crowd turns onto the Congressman’s street, people dart out of the crowd and begin leafleting the Congressman’s neighbors, explaining his support for the war. When the march arrives at Ehlers’ house, people knock on his door to ask him to sign a contract pledging to stop funding the war. The Congressman—who the group would later learn was home—doesn’t answer the door and the contract is taped to his house. Others put signs in his yard demanding that he stop funding the war while a member of the group talks about the Congressman’s support for the war on a megaphone.

After the march, the Congressman—who had never really been questioned about his support for the war—is forced to defend his record in the media. The march gets considerable coverage in the local news and it is a catalyst for further organizing. Moreover, whenever the Congressman speaks in public, he talks about the protest—and admits to telling other members of Congress about the march. It  has clearly affected him.

III.

The difference between the two marches is one both of intent and empowerment. The first is what could be described as a traditional protest march—it addresses an important issue yet fails to draw connections. It is unfocused, lacks clarity, and there is ultimately little gained. Participants may have felt good about speaking out against the war, yet it is sadly doubtful that it made much of an impact. By contrast, the second march is directed towards a specific target who has the (potential) power to grant the protestors’ demands. The Congressman could stop funding the war, which could theoretically end the war (if enough did it). Moreover, the march—which was heavily advertised—is well planned and it is clear what the group is hoping to accomplish. People left feeling like they made a difference and people stay involved in the organizing group’s efforts for the next few years. The march not only affects its target, but it also empowers people.

INTRODUCTION

If you are engaged in radical or even mainstream political and/or community organizing, there is a good chance that at some point you will either want to or feel the need to organize a protest march. Protest marches are a traditional tactic. A march can have many different positive attributes: they can raise awareness about your issue or cause, they can force an issue ignored by the powers that be into the open, they can be inspiring for people in your community, they can build momentum as part of an ongoing campaign, and they can accomplish many other goals.

That said, there are can be many good reasons to do a march. As with any tactic you might choose to use, a march should only be undertaken if it makes sense for the issue you are working on. To have a successful march—or any other action for that matter—you should always begin by asking questions about what you hope to accomplish, how much energy it will take, and will it be effective as part of your long-term goals and strategy. Furthermore, a poorly planned march can often lead to over extending the group and potential burnout, a disempowering experience for those who attend, and discouraging others from seeing what can be accomplished by protest marches and radical organizing in general.

If after considering those questions, you decide to organize a protest march, read on for a guide to organizing a march.

Before the guide starts, we have just one caveat: this guide focuses primarily on organizing semi-legal, primarily aboveground marches. If your goal is to organize a disruptive and very illegal kind—and that’s great if it fits within your goals and you have the people to pull it off—but that is another tactic entirely and much of this advice won’t apply.

INGREDIENTS

• An issue or cause that you care about (for example, U.S. imperialism, gentrification, capitalism, etc.)
• A group of people to help you organize a march (this can be an established collective or an ad-hoc group of people that come together to organize the march)
• A well-thought out plan (without a plan, a march is going to fail—but don’t worry, read on for some helpful ideas and suggestions)
• Optional: If you don’t have a set plan, at the very minimum a series of ideas is helpful
• Optional but Preferable: A creative idea that will make the march break out of the “typical” protest mode (for example, a festive march with puppets, a themed march, a street party, etc—the sky is the limit)

GOAL

The first part of organizing a successful protest march is to consider what the goal of your march is going to be. Is it to raise awareness? Do you want to disrupt business as usual? Do you want to force an issue into the open? Do you want to protest a particular injustice?

Asking questions about your goals can help the group organizing the march to clarify their purpose and to make sure everyone is on the same page—which can be critical in ensuring a successful march. You don’t want have half your group looking for a riot while the other half wants to look good for the media. Exploring the many facets of your issue—for example local developers and government agencies engaged in gentrification that displaces low-income people to make way for upscale housing—can lead to new angles that can shape your goals.

It also helps to consider multiple levels of goals. While your primary goal might be to draw attention to the exploitation of the fur industry or the U.S. occupation of Iraq, you should also consider other secondary goals such as getting new people involved or increasing your collective’s name recognition.

CHOOSING A TARGET

Once you have a goal and focus for your march, you should establish a target or series of targets. Ideally, these will be institutions or individuals that are related to your goal in some way, and preferably, those that have some degree of power to grant your demand. For example, if you are protesting the Iraq War, you might want to direct your protest against a company making weapons for the war, a Congress member who supports the war (or takes a typical spineless liberal position through which they fail to challenge the war), or some other such target. In other cases, you might want to direct your march towards another target—for example an office supply store that is selling paper made from old growth forests—if you are protesting deforestation.

All too often, protest marches lack focus—who hasn’t seen a march winding its way through town with no clear destination or with no focus? Protesting can be an effective educational tool, but most often, it is much more empowering to direct that anger and energy towards a specific target. Would you prefer to stand on the corner by your house yelling about the war or would you rather yell in the face of a politician who voted support for the slaughter?

CHOOSING A DATE

Sometimes, you can’t control the date of your march. For example, a politician or a corporate executive might be coming to town. In that case, the date will be set for you. However, if you are able to set the date yourself—for example it’s an issue that allows some flexibility—you would do well to give your group plenty of time to advertise and prepare materials. We have generally found that a date one month in the future works well.

Additionally, when choosing a date, you should consider traffic (pedestrian and vehicular) in the area where you will be marching. Are Saturdays particularly dead in your downtown? You might want to have a march on a weekday instead. Is your target closed on the day you choose? Then you should probably choose a day when it is open. If your downtown is a ghost town, it may not be worth organizing a march in that area. Nothing is more disempowering than a march that nobody sees and from which participants leave feeling as though they accomplished nothing.

CHOOSING A MEETING PLACE

You will want to choose a meeting place for the march that is near any targets that you want to go by, stop at, or at which you wish to conclude. If your location is over a mile from your intended target, you are likely meeting too far away. Additionally, you should choose a meeting place that is easy to find—for example a park—and always provide the nearest intersection to make it easier for people to find.

Depending on the political situation, you may want to meet at a place such as a park at which people can legally gather. In most cases, it makes no sense to purchase a permit from the state. Why should you have to pay the government to exercise your so-called right to free speech? Not only is it illogical, for most groups it will be cost prohibitive. In several years of doing political organizing in Grand Rapids, nobody has been arrested for gathering without a permit.

CHOOSING A ROUTE

Once you have chosen your meeting place and targets, you should figure out the route of your march. Marches that decide this in advance generally go the smoothest—after all, you don’t want to take a wrong turn down a dead end street or make some other embarrassing mistake.

Generally, you will want to take the route that gets you to your destination in a reasonable amount of time. People tend to get bored on long marches and nothing is easier for our critics to dismiss than a march that looks like a horde of zombies. Most often, the routes that are the best will be on visible streets or by those targets that you are trying to influence. For example, if you are protesting the war in Iraq—you might want to go by the government and corporate office buildings that sustain the war.

ADVERTISING

Once you have the logistical aspects of your march covered, you will want to get started advertising (you very well may want to do this before you have some of the details figured out). We suggest that you begin by creating a flyer that contains:

• The date, time, and location of your march
• An eye-catching graphic or two
• A website or email for more information
• A brief background on your march (the “why” and “what” of what you are protesting)
• Anything you want people to bring: for example, signs, banners, etc.

This flyer will be the basis of your advertising and outreach. You should make several 8.5×11 or larger copies to post around town along with quarter or half-size copies to distribute to people by hand. A successful advertising strategy will include posting flyers at sympathetic businesses and other locations (for example, coffee shops, record stores, high schools, colleges, local collective spaces), on telephone poles and street posts (using wheat paste or tape), and handing them out at events where sympathetic people will be (note: when doing this, you should ask first and be sure to stick around for the actual event).

You should also aim to tell as many people as you can about your march via face-to-face conversations. Tell your friends, tell those with similar politics, and seek out groups or coalitions that have open meetings and invite them to the protest.

Additionally, you should plan to do additional advertising on the Internet. Unless the march is being organized on incredibly short notice, Internet advertising should never substitute for flyers and other advertising. That said, Internet advertising is critical—post your march on local independent media websites, Craig’s List, local event calendars, related local message boards, and make “events” for your march on websites such as Facebook and MySpace and invite your friends—and encourage others to do the same.

You can never do too much advertising—always push yourself to find new places and ways to advertise. It’s critical if you want to have a successful march.

SHAPING THE MESSAGE AND CREATING MATERIALS

While it is good to encourage people to bring their own signs and banners to your protest, you will often want to make sure that a coherent message is being presented to your targets, passersbys, and/or the media. To do this, it often helps to produce a series of compelling signs and visuals with your message.

For example, you might want to have a banner at the front of your march that makes your message clear, for example, “Stop Police Brutality Now.” In some cases—especially for semi-legal protests that plan to occupy the streets, it helps to have additional banners down the side that can help prevent cars and police from driving into the march (and potentially protecting people from being arrested).

Aside from a lead banner, it can also be helpful to produce signs for the march because no matter how many flyers you distribute asking people to bring signs, you can be pretty sure that a good number of people won’t have signs. An easy way to mass produce signs for minimal cost is to use stencils and spray paint to spray onto cardboard. Taking the police brutality protest example from above, you could quickly produce a number of signs with a wealth of messages—“GRPD = Racist,” “Police Off Our Backs,” and other such slogans.

Beyond signs, it is generally helpful to have a leaflet that you can distribute to pedestrians and drivers as you march. Your leaflet should include a basic explanation of the issue, a website for people to get more information, and ideally, a way for them to get involved in future organizing efforts.

STICKING TOGETHER

As you think about the logistical aspects of the march, it is also important to think about how to keep the crowd together. Keeping the group together gives you the maximum visual impact, gives marchers a sense of strength and unity, and ensures safety (particularly if you are marching in the street and are concerned about traffic or police). One way to do this is by having people in the front who are in communication with people in the back who can then adjust the pace if necessary to ensure that the march isn’t thinning out and that people are not being left behind. Moreover, you will want organizers in the front to ensure that the march follows its intended route.

MEDIA

Dealing with the media is a whole other topic—and there is a good debate to be had if it is worth it or not—but generally if you are organizing some kind of protest march, you should plan for some kind of interaction with the media. You should also be prepared for the fact that the media has two basic goals: 1) to sell its product; and 2) to protect the status quo.

Consequently, you can expect the media to do everything in its power to minimize the point of your protest (because dissent is a challenge to the status quo) and to focus on the most outlandish or sensational aspect of your protest. Did someone get arrested at your march? You can bet that will be a big focus of the news coverage. Is there someone who looks “weird” by mainstream social/cultural standards at your protest (say, a kid with a mohawk)? You can be pretty sure they will talk to that person.

It is easy to spend hours talking about how the media works to minimize dissent, but suffice it to say, they rarely want to portray your efforts in a positive light. Consequently, if you plan to talk to the media, it helps to make an effort to consider a few points before hand:

• Designate one or two “media spokespeople” from your group. Have them actively seek out reporters and offer those reporters interviews.
• Spokespeople should have a few key talking points—agreed to beforehand by the rest of the group—that they wish to share with the media. Talking points that deal with why you are doing and what you are doing are definitely the best.
• Be prepared for the traps: don’t answer questions like “are you disappointed with the small turnout?” or others that aim to give the public a disempowering view of your march. Play up the positives of what you are doing.

THE LAW

In addition to the media, another one of those adverse forces that you will likely have to deal with is the law. In all cases, police are never your friends. When it comes to protest marches, they generally have one goal—to minimize the disruption through repression (this can range from arrest to enforcing arcane ordinances requiring a picket line to be constantly moving). In some cases, they want to neutralize dissent altogether and may respond in incredibly brutal ways.

Before your protest march, it is a smart idea to consider what you are going to do if the police come. While debating “what if” scenarios can be crippling, it is typically helpful to consider the big ones: What will you do if a person(s) is arrested? Do you wish to obey police orders? Who will you represent your group to the police (if you want anyone to do so)? At what point will you challenge or cease challenging their authority?

Beyond these questions, it is also helpful to designate a few people to deal with the police. Typically, having one person engage with the police (wait for them to approach you, never defer to their authority) is helpful—that person can relay information to the larger group. In addition, it is a good idea to have a couple people with video cameras recording the actions of the police in case of arrests and/or other repression. The person(s) designated as police liaison(s) can also help to keep the crowd calm.

Finally, you would do well to consider what you will do if people get arrested at the march. When an arrest happens, the legal/police liaisons should gather as much information as possible—the names of the person(s) arrested, what was happening, what the police did or said, officer’s badge numbers, witnesses (and a way to contact them), and any photos/video of the arrest. In addition, at the conclusion march, it is imperative that the organizers pass a hat to collect money for bail and invite the group to come to the jail to get the arrestees out and show their support.

ROLES

With the suggestions above, you may be thinking that it seems like an awful lot of work for one—or even a few people. And it is. Consequently, it often helps to split the work into a series of roles. For example, a few people can be designated legal observers, a few people can leaflet, a few people can be paying attention to the speed and direction of the march, and a few people can deal with the media. By assigning roles (democratically of course), you can greatly enhance both the efficiency and effectiveness of your protest march.

ADDITIONAL TOPICS FOR CONSIDERATION

There are no doubt many ideas, potential roles, and other such things that we have not thought of. Moreover, it is important to remember that while the authors have had success with these tactics and strategies, we are by no means experts and everything must be refined and adapted to local circumstances.

Angela Davis: Frameworks for Social Justice

February 10, 2010
GRCC Diversity Lecture Series

7pm – Fountain Street Church (24 Fountain St NE)

Angela Davis is known internationally for her ongoing work to combat all forms of oppression. Over the years, as a student, teacher, writer, scholar, activist and organizer – and even prisoner – she has become a living witness to the historical struggles of two generations of American life.

In 1969, Angela Davis came to national attention after being removed from her teaching position at UCLA as a result of her social activism and her membership in the Communist Party. In 1970 she was placed on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List on false charges, culminating in one of the most famous trials in recent American history. During her sixteen-month incarceration, a massive international “Free Angela Davis” campaign was organized, leading to her acquittal in 1972. She is the author of five books, including the campus classics Angela Davis: An Autobiography and Women, Race & Class. Currently, Davis is a tenured professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

She is an advocate of prison abolition with a powerful critique of racism in the criminal justice system and is working on a comparative study of women’s imprisonment.

In the weeks following the summit, a really good critique of the both the COP15 actions and the so-called “climate justice” movement was published. Titled “The Dead End of Climate Justice” the critique takes to task the NGOs and environmental groups that have attempted to make the “climate justice” movement the second coming of the anti-globalization movement of the late 1990s and early 2000s.

However, in doing this, the authors of the critique point out that the NGOs and professional activists have missed some of the biggest components of the anti-globalization movement and are instead pursuing capitalist solutions (that prop up the state’s power and human domination over nature), are rejecting militant tactics, and are promoting a variation of North-South imperialism. Moreover, the entire process was largely akin to lobbying, relying on NGOs, and cozying up to power.

From the article:

“In Copenhagen, the movement was asked by these newly empowered managers of popular resistance to focus solely on supporting actors within the UN framework, primarily leaders of the Global South and NGOs, against others participating in the summit, mainly countries of the Global North. Nothing summarizes this orientation better than the embarrassingly disempowering Greenpeace slogans “Blah Blah Blah, Act Now!” and “Leaders Act!” Addressing politicians rather than ordinary people, the attitude embodied in these slogans is one of relegating the respectable force of almost 100,000 protesters to the role of merely nudging politicians to act in the desired direction, rather than encouraging people to act themselves. This is the logic of lobbying. No display of autonomous, revolutionary potential. Instead, the emphasis is on a mass display of obedient petitioning. One could have just filled out Greenpeace membership forms at home to the same effect.”

Much of this could have been avoided had the self-proclaimed leaders of the demonstration learned from the past:

“As we grapple with these many disturbing trends that have arisen as primary tendencies defining the climate justice movement, we have no intention of further fetishizing the antiglobalization movement and glossing over its many shortcomings. Many of the tendencies we critique here were also apparent at that time. What is important to take away from comparisons between these two historical moments is that those in leadership positions within the contemporary movement that manifested in Copenhagen have learned all the wrong lessons from the past. They have discarded the most promising elements of the antiglobalization struggles: the total rejection of all market and commodity-based solutions, the focus on building grassroots resistance to the capitalist elites of all nation-states, and an understanding that diversity of tactics is a strength of our movements that needs to be encouraged.”

Read the rest of “The Dead End of Climate Justice.”