[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Pierre Khalfa (ATTAC-France) on violence &

There is also a very clear genealogy of the most recent series of protests and resistances - you can trace them back to the 'encounters' organised by the zapatistas (two, one in 96 and another in 97):

From the PGA bulletin,
"After the second encuentro, in August 1997, some 50 representatives of these varied movements - including indigenous groups from Nigeria and Mexico, and farmers' organizations from India, Brazil, Bolivia, and Indonesia - sat down to plan worldwide protests against the World Trade Organization, the prime symbol and instrument of corporate globalization. To facilitate organizing, they created an ongoing network, which they called Peoples' Global Action, or PGA for short."

The first global day of action took place in may 98 organised largely from within the PGA network. We can then trace the current series through the next PGA action - J18 (99). The third in this series wasN30 (Seattle - which wasn't just Seattle, but another in the series of global days of action).

It then blossomed into what we have today. But it is important to remember that it isn't the result of the history of resistance with europe or america that lead to where we are today. The overwhelming 'wieght' of this meshwork of networks and movements lies in the South. And the overwhelming majority of emails, letters, etc that I have seen, read and received from the South have not been reformist in nature, to say the least.

When Pierre Khalfa talks of 'taking charge', will he be telling the brazillian landless peasants movement how to compromise with the brazilian government? Will he be negotiating on behalf of the 500,000 Indians who took to the streets in may 98? Will he be organising with the italian police so as to create an authorised space for 'legitimate and self-policed' protest? Will he also negotiate the end of undercover cops attacking protesters, COINTELPRO activities, and the incorporation of fascists organisations in paramilitary operations?

My biggest problem with Pierre Khalfa's work is the claim to authority and control - it is both unneeded, and undesirable. Recuperation is a real threat. It is an old tactic, but well worn. Work with those that are willing to compromise, and marginalise the rest. Then give the compromised a stake in the established order, and institute a minor change in such a way as to profit those who would have otherwise suffered. Then put that in a global context - divide the Northern networks and groups, and ignore and surpress the Southern networks and movements.

(and so jeroen, it is not some 'heroic' myth that sustains my disgust and disappointment at those that would compromise (which is not the same thing as those that are not 'warriors' - being non-militant (or 'fluffy') does not automatically mean being compromised. There is room for a vast range of tactics and strategies - but they will all be equally sold out through compromising with governments, trans-governmental organisation and corporations. It is also worth noting that one particular tactic for dealing with 'movements' such as this one is to 'decapitate' the leadership. And if no leadership can be found, as is the case with 'us', then leadership can be 'installed' and created).

Compromise under these circumstances will not mean improvement in the circumstances of most people across the global. Many of the networks and organisations I have had contact with say that only the devolution of power (or governance, or control) to the local level, along with the abolition of exploitative, and hierarchical structures and powers (ie, capitalism, nationalistic governmental structures, colonial structures etc).

As for the question of violence:
(which, again, jeroen accuses me of 'enjoying' - a nasty and low smear. Anyone who has ever been a victim of violence will know that it is not something that can be enjoyed. And there is no thrill in seeing your comrades, friends and family suffer. One can be reluctant yet still face the violence of the state, of capital, of colonialism. And belonging and community are different things to comradery - comradery forms of the field, belonging and community develop through the myriad of small and invisible interactions and stories shared by a body of people. I am a part of a community. And a part of this community chooses to resist. Indeed part of the communities' identity is bound up in resistance - though not all of its resistance is founded on confrontation.)

Firstly, Pierre Khalfa's work quite clearly ignores the fact that in genoa (as well as in prague, washington, quebec, melbourne, barcelona,�i.e all of the cities in the North which have seen 'anti-globalisation' protests) there was a significant body of police and agent-provocateurs (such as fascists) that disguised themselves as black bloc'ers and engaged in violence against other protesters, and against targets that are not normally part of the black blocs 'range' (ie, small local shops, etc).

Secondly, it doesn't see that in most other places, the black bloc have worked quite well with other organisations, affinity groups, etc. Quebec was a perfect example of that.

Thirdly, it ignores the fact that it has been the more militant and creative groups, as opposed to the more traditional 'organised' groups (like NGO's and trade unions - though not all trade unions) that have lead the resistance. More often than not the more traditional groups have lead (or tried to lead) people away from confrontation and away from significance - as has been pointed out by many commentators (all far more articulate than me) without the confrontation there would be no movement, and there would be no effect.

And lastly, it doesn't address the fact that for the majority of the people who are a part of this 'movement' have absolutely no choice - peacefully working with the government to create a 'legitimate' and polite space for protest against the IMF in Ghana (or Argentina, Bolivia, the Philippines, Peru, Turkey, Bangladesh, etc) doesn't seem very realistic to me. Tactics and strategies must be decided upon by the people who will be engaged in their application, and in context. Compromise and the imposition of the 'rules of engagement' will do nothing but split the 'movement', alienate the organisers from the organised, and create yet another bureaucracy within the current state structure that will do everything that it can to maintain the status quo (with one or two minor changes) against the tide of change.

nik