QWB wants to share this essay. What do you think?
Propaganda of the deed,’ the lazy person’s direct action
By m(A)tt, The War Stops Here
The NYPD is alleging that a small bomb caused minor damage to the military recruiting center in Times Square, New York City this morning. The AP is reporting that police have video footage of a hooded bicyclist riding away from the scene, and that several congressional offices have recieved envelopes with photos and manifestos claiming responsibility.
I will not speculate about whether or not this was an act by actual antiwar activists, police provocateurs, or wingnuts. Some important things to keep in mind, however, include the fact that Times Square is not the kind of place where things such as this can just happen without the authorities having a whole lot more to go on than such a vague description; local police forces, and the NYPD in particular, are notorious for creating pretexts for repression against movements they don’t like. But regardless, this situation raises an important point about tactics and strategy, what is or is not defined as direct action, and what types are going to take us the farthest in a movement that can effectively bring the war to an end.
I personally have an inclusive definition of direct action. It doesn’t necessarily have to remedy a problem in the immediate sense, such as when workers might collectively decide to clock out after the amount of hours they’re willing to work. It’s a relative term, depending on what stage you might find yourself in; at the recent guerilla theater action at the University of Alabama by SDS and IVAW members, it was direct in the sense that it was an action that forced the campus to witness a sample of the day-to-day reality that is the occupation of Iraq. Compared to recent actions in DC or Olumpia, WA, it may seem tame; but in their own context, it was direct because it was an un-mistakable, direct message that could not be ignored. In such a conservative setting, oftentimes the most direct thing you can do is get your message across.
Assuming for a moment that the Times Square incident was carried out by activists, in a broad sense, it too may have been a form of direct action. Certainly it closed down the recruitment center, and cost the military a little cash. But, in the long-run, the important question to ask ourselves is this: how will this make us stronger? When you factor in the impending media campaign of criminalization, possibly widespread and indiscriminate repression of the movement at the hands of the NYPD and Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), and a sense of danger among newcomers to the movement, this “action,” is clearly enormously high risk, and at best, had a modest impact.
I’m also going to avoid the question of property destruction, because at the core of that particular issue is a concept known as violence. In all the ways that matter, violence is what we percieve to be violent, and not necessarily what our ideological definitions of it may be. While I may believe that violence is only something you can do to a living thing, and while I may be opposed to the very concept of property, in reality violence is something that exists in the eye of the beholder. Smashing a window is fairly violent, though clealy much less so than an explosive device. Gluing the locks of a building shut (like a recruitment center) would probably be considered more a nuisance than violent by most reasonable people, yet it has much the same physical effect of both the explosion and the act of smashing. As I alluded to above, the DC SDS kids have managed to shut down their local recruitment center simply by briefly occupying the space in a festive display of youth power that has excited anybody who has seen the video.
When we have so many other equally- or more-effective tactics at our disposal, it’s not hard to figure out whether or not the use of explosives should be a part of our strategy to end the war. Strategy is a very big concept, factoring in constituencies, messaging, alliance-building, process, and tactics. If our tactics preclude all the other crucial aspects of an effective, mass movement strategy, then it is clearly worse than useless. It displays an isolation from any sense of community (be it the neighborhood or the movement) when the best that someone can come up with is an easy, sporadic, and careless act such as this, with the ill-concieved notion that it could possibly move others to action.
I will conclude by stating that none of this, nor anything else anyone writes on the subject, should be used as a bludgeon against the suspects in this or any other similar incident. While I reject this form of action, under no circumstances should we sit idly by while others in common cause are given politically-motivated inflated sentences. When Manhattan College student David Segal was arrested after trying to set fire to a Bronx recrtuitment center, he faced up to 20 years in prison. Many of us at the time recognized that such a sentence would set a very bad precedent in the future for any of us who were accused of even small acts of vandalism while engaged in antiwar activity, and because of the support that was shown (and David’s socioeconomic privileges) he recieved 10-16 months. When we’re told to take a side, we can never side with the authorities. And whatever you do, whatever they tell you, DON’T TALK TO THE COPS WITHOUT TALKING TO A LAWYER FIRST. Don’t open the door, don’t respond to threats, and if they call you, hang up!
Thanks to Matt of The War Stops Here and QWB for permission to republish this essay. Its a lot of food for thought and lends itself well to disscussion. How about it?
4 comments
I would have to echo what QWB’s friend in NYC James Wagner said. “A million people in Times Square protesting the war is hardly according to the media a news worthy event, but one small bombing and its all over the news in all places.” Makes one wonder. Back in the day there were some who “Brought the War” home and some who marched peacefully and some who sat in. I still don’t know if any of it did any good to end the war in Vietnam or was it the defeat of the US by the People of Vietnam that ended the war. Maybe all the pushing by us did do something. At least we stood up and said no for whatever our reasons.
I think that this would make a very good discussion in a group meeting. Thanks for this post Matt.
Great post by Matt and follow-up comment by Richard. Boiled down, I think there are two questions that have to be addressed in evaluating this “action” (assuming, for the moment, that that’s what it was):
1. Do we think that this kind of action moves the struggle forward or holds it back?
2. Assuming that we do not embrace this tactic ourselves, do we as activists defend it, disavow it, or ignore it?
Matt does a good job of making the argument that even if we reject the tactic it doesn’t follow that we would abandon the person(s) that carry it out. The pacifist/socialist David McReynolds (with whom I have often respectfully but firmly disagreed about many other things) was spot on when he wrote during the Vietnam War that even if the Chicago 7 had committed the crimes of which they were accused, their actions were pale reflections of the horrendous crimes of Nixon, Kissinger, et al. I believe the way McReynolds put it was that based on this comparison, if Nixon were sent to jail for life for his crimes, then it would be justice if the Chacago 7 defendants were required to step into a jail cell and then quickly step back out again!
Here goes more than likely nothing.
I don’t think the the minor bombing of the recruitng station in Times Square did much to advance the movement against the recruiting of young women and men and the war in Iraq. I also don’t think that it would have brought anymore people into the movement against the war. In the post 9/11 day I would gather that most people would be scared of any movement that bombs as a form of protest and would stay clear of it. Now if this was a person really protesting the war I can fully realize that some have arrived to this point as stated and are “Bringing the war home.” That as we know can be a very fine line, fraught with danger. Some are willing to cross that line so be it. Any of us in the movement would have to decide by the action if we would support the action and the person. There it would get tricky as many have been railroaded by the Feds.
I do agree if it is property not people that is destroyed then I could support the action and would monitor the case. Burning down MC Mansions or letting the rabbits and monkeys go are nothing compared to the crimes by this government against the people of Iraq. (but what about if the destruction puts alot of people out of work? We then would make enemies not friends.) As Peter said these crimes are minor compared to the crimes of this government.
I agree we can never side with the govenment in its cracking down against any of us. Of course we will have a lot more work to do convincing people why X should be supported,rallying to the cause and standing firm. It sort of reminds me of the line from the song “Love Me I’m a Liberal”, Phil Ochs sings, “Don’t take about revolution, thats going just a little bit too far.” (Here I think of the reaction of most of the movement to the “bomber”.) We have heard it all before.
I am sure it didn’t take the recruiters long to set back up operations and even while the work men were fixing the door and the plate glass the war went on. Women and Men were being recruited somewhere.
I sort of liked the symbolism of the twisted blacken door and shattered glass. It was worth at least many thousand words. Many have gone in that door as an everyday citizen and come out as cannon fodder. How many have come back home maimed or dead? How many in Iraq are now dead. Just becaue of that door. Just because of that man standing in front of the door. Just because of the government. Maybe the bomber is an artist trying to tell us quite a lot.
Now to the part that always gets me in trouble.
Many times over the years I have wondered if all our protesting does any good. As I have stated, “go to a sit-in, get pepper sprayed, head bashed, put in jail, pay a fine,(I hate that part) go home, but the war goes on. March down the street yelling and chanting you get a sore throat, go home, garggle, watch the news at night and the war goes on. What gain do we have from all this toil? (turn, turn, turn) This week a thousand in the street, next a million but no one who should listen and act does. Maybe the Quakers and other pacifists have it right, “we do this to bear witness, to place a small weight on the other side of killing, to testify for the good, to be a voice in the wilderness.”
I don’t know but I will always stand up against war, the imperialists,religious fanatics,government, injustice, and all the wrongs both small and great. I hope by doing so that the action will give the push that is needed to get the ball rolling for real liberation,justice and peace.
I really think that this would make a good community forum of the peace movement here in CT.
Thanks for writing this Matt, and Peter & Richard for responding. I was thinking about this too.
Leave a Comment