what are some tactics that can actually work in stopping some of these extraction projects?
the blockades meet the first condition, and we'll see if they can meet the second through mass action or not. it's a passable strategy, at least, if they shift to a large number of ad hoc blockades that can come up and down quickly, rather than try and hold a single spot. if they can get enough people to cause enough mayhem, it becomes impossible to police, leading to greater profit losses and the possibility of the capitalists saying "enough" and making a concession.
i've yet to see any evidence of them actually doing this, but that's the way you do it - you set up small blockades, you move them around chaotically, you try to avoid predictable patterns, and you do it relentlessly. so, you stop trying to confront the cops, and start actively avoiding them, instead - because you realize that your focus is not in defeating the police by a show of force, but in harming the profits of the capitalist class, and you keep your focus on what your enemy is, without being drawn out by distractions or pissing matches. you stay disciplined...
the third condition is more challenging, and they need to spend a lot more time on it. they are losing this debate in the public sphere, and potentially harming the people they're trying to stand with, in the process.
i'd be a lot more likely to argue that direct actions tied directly to the pipeline have a greater chance of meeting these three criteria and actually leading to concessions.
yes, i support a diversity of tactics. i've been careful not to denounce anybody, i've just been clear that i think this is tactically stupid - that it's not going anywhere, that it's perhaps even counterproductive, and that it's reflective of a level of desperation, rather than careful planning.
but, if there is a purpose to blocking a rail line in southern ontario, it is to try and spark a broader movement, like a general strike. the way the feds responded seems to have demonstrated little understanding of this, which is something that the indigenous groups should exploit to their advantage. they've been given an opening, here, i'll concede that. so, what they need to do is get as many people out as they possibly can and cause as much havoc as is possible, with the hopes that it spills over. that was always the tactic, and they'll tell you that better than i can, but, as stated, the context is that it's a desperate act.....
i know from experience that these groups want to measure the value of a direct action by it's intent, rather than it's outcome. the mere concept of a "direct action" has this kind of romanticism to it, in contrast to the "peaceful protest" which is seen as pointless and ineffectual. they're not wrong to draw that contrast, and i've drawn it over and over again, myself, but they tend to have difficulty getting beyond the abstraction of romanticizing "direct action", of kind of role-playing revolutionaries by manning barricades, like it's a game in drama class, and actually developing meaningful direct actions that can actually extract meaningful concessions.
so, i've pointed to a sit-down strike, and the factors required to make it effective. maybe i can generalize this. i'm supposed to be the academic, here. what do you need to look at in designing an effective direct action that goes beyond these empty concepts of movement solidarity and moral self-righteousness?
1) the direct action needs to directly harm somebody's actual profit in a substantive way. you have to be able to physically get in between some capitalist enterprise and the expropriation of their surplus value. that is the reason that strikes and blockades are effective - because they cost people money, and that is the only thing that capitalists actually care about.
2) you need to be able to protect the direct action from the police, at least to the point of requiring a blood bath to take it down. if you get to the point where they need to send in snipers to take you down, that's probably good enough (although you might need to be prepared for them to try to psych you out). any direct action that can be dismantled easily by the police is simply a waste of time. the other way around this is to generate huge numbers of people, so that the cops are overwhelmed. but, if you're going to do direct action, it is absolutely imperative that you have a tactic to fight the police off. they will arrest you, if they can, and then you're not hurting anybody's profit any more, and can be safely ignored.
3) you need to have popular support. i'm not making an argument about democracy, here. as before, this is purely tactical - the only weapon that these people really have is the threat that they may get the broader society on their side. essentially, the police and government have to be worried that dismantling the direct action by force will lead to greater losses of profit than leaving them in place.
once you have these three components in place, you can reasonably start making demands.
but, if your direct action essentially amounts to putting on a balaclava and looking chic in your revolutionary garb, as you yell slogans with ten people in an attempt to try to get laid, and get nailed by the press for doing it, then you're a retard that probably deserves what they get.
i know from experience that these groups want to measure the value of a direct action by it's intent, rather than it's outcome. the mere concept of a "direct action" has this kind of romanticism to it, in contrast to the "peaceful protest" which is seen as pointless and ineffectual. they're not wrong to draw that contrast, and i've drawn it over and over again, myself, but they tend to have difficulty getting beyond the abstraction of romanticizing "direct action", of kind of role-playing revolutionaries by manning barricades, like it's a game in drama class, and actually developing meaningful direct actions that can actually extract meaningful concessions.
so, i've pointed to a sit-down strike, and the factors required to make it effective. maybe i can generalize this. i'm supposed to be the academic, here. what do you need to look at in designing an effective direct action that goes beyond these empty concepts of movement solidarity and moral self-righteousness?
1) the direct action needs to directly harm somebody's actual profit in a substantive way. you have to be able to physically get in between some capitalist enterprise and the expropriation of their surplus value. that is the reason that strikes and blockades are effective - because they cost people money, and that is the only thing that capitalists actually care about.
2) you need to be able to protect the direct action from the police, at least to the point of requiring a blood bath to take it down. if you get to the point where they need to send in snipers to take you down, that's probably good enough (although you might need to be prepared for them to try to psych you out). any direct action that can be dismantled easily by the police is simply a waste of time. the other way around this is to generate huge numbers of people, so that the cops are overwhelmed. but, if you're going to do direct action, it is absolutely imperative that you have a tactic to fight the police off. they will arrest you, if they can, and then you're not hurting anybody's profit any more, and can be safely ignored.
3) you need to have popular support. i'm not making an argument about democracy, here. as before, this is purely tactical - the only weapon that these people really have is the threat that they may get the broader society on their side. essentially, the police and government have to be worried that dismantling the direct action by force will lead to greater losses of profit than leaving them in place.
once you have these three components in place, you can reasonably start making demands.
but, if your direct action essentially amounts to putting on a balaclava and looking chic in your revolutionary garb, as you yell slogans with ten people in an attempt to try to get laid, and get nailed by the press for doing it, then you're a retard that probably deserves what they get.
the blockades meet the first condition, and we'll see if they can meet the second through mass action or not. it's a passable strategy, at least, if they shift to a large number of ad hoc blockades that can come up and down quickly, rather than try and hold a single spot. if they can get enough people to cause enough mayhem, it becomes impossible to police, leading to greater profit losses and the possibility of the capitalists saying "enough" and making a concession.
i've yet to see any evidence of them actually doing this, but that's the way you do it - you set up small blockades, you move them around chaotically, you try to avoid predictable patterns, and you do it relentlessly. so, you stop trying to confront the cops, and start actively avoiding them, instead - because you realize that your focus is not in defeating the police by a show of force, but in harming the profits of the capitalist class, and you keep your focus on what your enemy is, without being drawn out by distractions or pissing matches. you stay disciplined...
the third condition is more challenging, and they need to spend a lot more time on it. they are losing this debate in the public sphere, and potentially harming the people they're trying to stand with, in the process.
i'd be a lot more likely to argue that direct actions tied directly to the pipeline have a greater chance of meeting these three criteria and actually leading to concessions.