Discussion Themes for Workshops
Shut Down: The Rise and Fall of Direct Action to Stop the War (DASW)
Themes for discussion:
1) Diversity of Participants- DASW created an inviting atmosphere for new people, encouraged creative/artistic/fun actions, and avoided sub-culture designations. It prioritized working with existing community-based organizations, with an analysis that people most impacted by the war needed to be part of the organizing.
Is a festive atmosphere too celebratory when protesting against horrible things?
How can we integrate creative and artistic expression into meeting culture to break out of dominant white culture?
2) Autonomy- Not a project of any specific organization or party, DASW used a self-organized/ decentralized model. All volunteer funds raised from participants (ie. grassroots), few artificial limits placed on expression of dissent (ie. no code of conduct). Public call for non-violence without giving a clear defininition, thereby creating space for affinity groups to determine the level of confrontation they felt most comfortable with and empowered by while respecting the “tone of each zone”.
How can individual accountability be insured within decentralized organizing? How can group vision and morale be maintained without centralization?
3) Mass Civil Disobedience and Direct Action- Encouraged large numbers of people to risk arrest and actively disobey laws and police to “stop business as usual”, action had the possibility of widespread replication both within SF (ie. general strike) and nationally (ie. spreading to other cities). Challenged passive civilians to take responsibility for the war through disruption of traffic and corporate and governement offices.
How can the needs of those most at risk from police violence be best balanced with the desire of others to use more confrontational or empowering tactics? How do we define “militant” Action/militancy? How can confrontation be most empowering and effective?
4) Radical analysis- Started with an analysis that Iraq war is a part of a larger corporate plan to strengthen US empire, and that people of color are most directly impacted at home and abroad. Targeted the financial district and individual corporate war profiteers. Targeted key elements of the war for disruption (ie. port of Oakland where war material is shipped from, the headquarters of Chevron/Texaco a corporation profiting from the war, other war profiteers like Bechtel and Lockhead Martin). Logic of “raising social costs on the war makers” and pointing out the lack of democratic process in waging the war.
How do we raise consciousness about the deeper roots of war while avoiding dogmatism/sectarianism?
5) Infrastructure- Coordinated months in advance so that committed and skilled people would do legal, media, medical, food, orientation for new people, create website, communications (cell phones, walkie talkies, pirate radio, etc.).
What are ways to develop and maintain infrastructure? How much does this depend on existing networks and institutions?
6) Networking/alliance building- Used the infrastructure of sympathetic churches for meetings and trainings, consciously worked in coalition with community organizations. No ability to clearly coordinate with already existing organizing groups, no consensus about which groups should be supported, what the support would look like, how they could integrate into ongoing organizing.
How can we build cohesive networks and maintain connections? How can alliance building be focused more on long-term movement building, not just short-term actions? How can organizations with different focus, levels of experience, analysis and commitment work productively together?
7) Open planning – Publicized meetings to encourage wide participation and limit the divisive effects of paranoia and infiltration. Realizing that true security from repression comes from solidarity on a massive scale. Large scale planning was coordinated through the spokescouncil but specific tactics were left to affinity groups to organize in private. What are the shortcomings with this approach? Are there other models for secure group planing?
Consensus decision-making- Used 2/3 consensus so it was more difficult for one secretive group to dominate. Also the group worked to find solutions even if they were not the most desired outcome. However, no widely shared understanding of structural inequality/privilege, no clear strategy about how to empower new voices and people who are dis-empowered by existing power relations (ie, patriarchy, white supremacy/racism, classism, heteronormalcy, ableism, education level, level of experience, cultural differences, linguistic differences, “attractiveness”, spunkiness, karisma, charm, tyranny of the articulate.)
How can analysis around the interpersonal impacts of privilege and oppression be integrated to strengthen organizing? How can consensus decision-making incorporate inequalities in power (as listed above)? What are the shortcomings of 2/3 consensus?
9) Trainings- DASW trained hundreds of people in DA/CD before the actions. Trainings were spaces where new people could plug in and form new affinity groups. Trained media spokespeople that represented diverse communities.
How to expand trainings to build a long-term base of organizers and new leadership (not just direct action skills and legal 101)?
10) Outreach- massive flyering, comprehensive website, wheat pasting, savvy use of mainstream media (contacts with both local and international press), and media strategy with clear “what and why logic” (shutting down the downtown to disrupt the corporations that are causing the war).
What are the best ways to involve new people (meetings, volunteering, events, actions)? What are the best ways to inform a broad audience?
11) Core group- A small group of committed people who were able to prioritize their time around the action and felt a sense of ownership and power to steer the agenda were not able to transition into a more clear organization where others could share long-term decision making and rotate leadership (ie. empower the rest of the affinity groups and individual participants).
How can experienced and committed people be included in organizing (especilally in “democratic” settings) without taking over?
12) Leadership development- Had a concept that everyone should be a leader, without plan of how to share skills to develop new leadership. No clear consensus around importance of co-training and person-to-person mentoring.
What is the difference between leadership and leaders? How can leadership be encouraged, spread, and shared?
13) Community- Little shared cultural or personal ties to create longer term work, little ability to support each other in health, police, or interpersonal work.
What are ways this could have been prevented? Where have you felt most supported during political work? How do we develop radical culture that doesn’t self-marginalize?
14) Strategy:
short term goals- placed economic burden on city, and corporate profiteers to raise awareness about the systemic roots of the war and pressure stakeholders to pull out of Iraq. Inability to create a space for collective long-term strategizing about what it would take to end the war/occupation. The ritual and impact of direct action lost its sense of meaning when our actions were ignored.
How can we emphasize the need for long-term change that transforms the root causes of war (racism/white supremacy, imperialism, patriarchy, capitalism, authoritarianism, etc.) while building skills and involving more people in the short term? How can a collective long-term strategy be achieved with a decentralized decision-making model?
**Strategy varies based on local situations but here are a list of targets to consider for mass based direct action activism: Counter recruitment, army headquarters, blockading pro-war media outlets, blocking shipping, no borders solidarity (ICE centers, Detention facilities, minutemen and other anti-immigrant groups), political conventions (RNC in Minneapolis), congressional disruptions.
