💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › resistcooptpgh.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:39:07. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Resisting Co-Optation
Author: Pittsburgh Autonomous Student Network
Date: September 27, 2015
Language: en
Topics: co-optation, respectability, black lives matter, autonomy, anarchism, social insertion
Source: Retrieved on September 27th from http://fillerpunx.tumblr.com/

Pittsburgh Autonomous Student Network

Resisting Co-Optation

The Black Lives Matter Schism: Towards a Vision for Black Autonomy

Written by J. Northam

[Black Autonomy Federation // twitter @BlackAutonomist]

The Black Lives Matter movement exhibited a schism since the first few

days following the first Ferguson rebellion. I remember watching live

streams of the rebellion early on as Ferguson’s youth waged small scale

urban combat armed with little more than rubble and glass bottles. The

heroic resistance to state power, against all odds of victory in forcing

a retreat of the occupying militarized police, and in the face of

material consequences in the form of a brutal crackdown, was a

demonstration of courage that we all should aspire to.

The repression by the armed apparatus of the state in Ferguson (and

Baltimore months later) provoked another popular response. But this

response took on a different character. It seemed to want to place

distance between itself and those who were engaged in combat with the

police. Cloaked in a veneer of inclusiveness, it drowned out the

original spirit of resistance that the rebelling youths exhibited nights

before. The message was “we don’t want to be associated with them and we

will ‘resist’ within the confines of rules and regulations given to us

by established power”.

The latter trend did what it set out to do. It attracted a vast segment

of the liberal left, respectable quasi-radicals, nonprofit organizations

and sympathetic politicians. There were denunciations of riots, looting,

and property destruction as these tactics were considered “infantile”

and “alienating” to potential supporters and allies. Think piece after

think piece was written about themerits and demerits of various tactics

of resisting police occupation. The ones who fought back against the

police in Ferguson and Baltimore were touted as “misguided” and “lacking

in overall strategy” and they were ultimately left with virtually no

material support to continue their organic, grass roots, militant

struggle.

This schism between militant resistance and respectability has since

become more acute. The mass movement has become amorphous, and what

should have been channeled into organic revolutionary energy has

dissipated under the weight of having an incoherent structure and lack

of a declarative revolutionary political program that includes building

international, intercommunal alliances with other Black left movements

and anti-imperialist organizations worldwide. This flaw was seized upon

by petit bourgeois elements, who have seen fit to reduce the Black Lives

Matter movement to a “New Civil Rights Movement”, hell bent on simply

effecting policy changes rather than assigning it the character of a

revolutionary liberation struggle that requires a coherent strategy and

a diversity of tactics for its success.

This notwithstanding, there have been enormous organizational strides

made by local chapters of Black Lives Matter that have challenged the

status quo at an operational level. It shouldn’t be overlooked that the

overall indictment of institutional racism that the movement has

reintroduced into mainstream discourse has indeed had an effect on the

consciousness of various strata of the population. The question at hand

is whether or not this indictment can be carried through to its ultimate

conclusion: that those invested in maintaining our systemic oppression

are not fit to rule and should be removed from power. The longer Black

Lives Matter waits to answer this question, the more vulnerable it is to

co-optation, derailment and ultimately, dissolution.

Naturally, within a power structure that is programmed to halt all

revolutionary advances and counter all threats to its existence, the

reformist trend within the Black Lives Matter schism obviously picked up

the most steam; grant offers from foundations, visits to see liberal

capitalist politicians and airtime on CNN and MSNBC ensured that. Now we

have the ultimate bastardization of militant resistance manifested in

the form of Campaign Zero, a series of policy proposals that seek to end

police violence in America, as if it’s possible that an institution

founded in order to capture and torture runaway slaves and to protect

slave masters’ property can be reformed.

Campaign Zero was proposed by so called leaders of the movement and

twitter celebrities alike, with virtually no consultation with the mass

base of people who put themselves on the line in the streets against the

armed apparatus of the state. It is an arbitrary and piecemeal attempt

to synthesize militant resistance with the “progressivism” of the

Democratic Party, which ultimately leaves white supremacist institutions

intact. This overt display of conciliatory politics is nothing short of

a betrayal by Black petit-bourgeois liberals who legitimately hate the

system, but couldn’t garner the fortitude to imagine what they would do

without it. It is opportunist defeatism in writing.

Anyone who has a halfway decent grasp of history knows that the wanton

destruction of social movements spurred on by establishment liberals is

not a new phenomenon. At this point it’s formulaic. The Democratic party

exists to adapt to the ebbs and flows of social changes in this country

in a manner that provides concessions while maintaining the current

political economy of white supremacist, capitalist society. This is the

Democratic party’s only real demarcation from the outward and openly

bigoted reactionary Republican party. Both preserve the system. It is

not far off to suggest that the rapid resurgence of white nationalist

fascism that is currently being nurtured by the political right wing is

a safeguard should the liberal wing of the political establishment fail

to disrupt the movement and quell Black radicalism entirely.

With Campaign Zero and the corresponding frantic search for support

within the current bourgeois political milieu, the reformists within

Black Lives Matter are holding their breath for the 2016 elections,

where the US ruling class will ultimately decide whether the reactionary

or “humanitarian” wings of ruling power will respond to the political

unrest in a way that guarantees their continued existence. While this

anticipation may signal a decline in movement activity, it should be

primer to those activists (who don’t have to be reminded that the white

supremacist capitalist power structure will remain in place no matter

who wins the presidency) to begin to nurture the elements within the

movement that are not seeking to coexist with the system.

“Black Lives Matter” should not be declared as an appeal to ruling power

or racist white America to accept us as human. They don’t and they

won’t. Our value in this country has always been directly proportional

to the amount of profit we produce. With the advent of financial

mechanisms that no longer rely on Black labor to produce wealth, we have

now become disposable. The increase of extrajudicial murders by the

state and relative impunity that racist vigilante murderers of our

people seem to have are indicators of this. We say “Black Lives Matter”

as a reminder to us as Black people that our lives matter regardless if

we’re accepted as human by white society or not, and is said as a

declaration of resistance to our condition as beasts of burden for

capital.

But a declaration is not enough. Neither are policy reforms, symbolic

political actions and awareness campaigns. What is needed right now is

an entire shift in orientation. A complete overhaul of all of the

resources we have and can acquire at our disposal dedicated to the

purpose of relinquishing our dependency on the economic system that

exploits us; the building, maintenance, and defense of our own

institutions and organs of power, channeled for the general uplift of

our people, for our people, and by our people. The institutions that the

state uses to oppress us must have their diametrical counterpart built

by us for liberation purposes and must function to fill the void that

has been left by the excesses and crises of transnational capitalism.

Responsibility for the defense of our institutions rests with us, and

this defense will also serve the purpose of resisting any and all

attempts to put us back on the capitalist plantation.

We must strive for nothing less than the goal of complete

self-determination and autonomy of African descended people in the US

and abroad, working hand in hand in communal fellowship with other

oppressed peoples who have their own contradictions with the power

structure. Only by aligning ourselves with the international

anticolonial, anti-imperial movement can success be achieved, as we

represent only a little less than 13% of the national population.

Our organs of power will create a situation in which dual power will

give rise to all manner of reactionary fascism and their corresponding

weapons, as we are under siege on two sides: one side by the state that

wants to continue our exploitation or annihilate us, and on the other

side by the nation’s white nationalist and white supremacist silent

majority which simply just wants to annihilate us. Organization,

preparation, and development of the means to combat these threats is

paramount and should be considered an immediate priority.

This is our reality. We do not live in a reality whereby those who are

materially invested in our subjugation will suddenly come to their

senses, take pity on us, pay us reparations while we ride off into the

sunset and live happily ever after like the reformists tacitly imply by

their attempts at negotiating with US elites. The rest of the colonized

and neo-colonized world is ready to shake off their yoke of oppression

the moment it becomes clear that we’ve made our move. Evidence is seen

in the way that African Jews in Israel were inspired by videos of

Baltimore’s youth overrunning riot squads. The comrades shutting down

traffic arteries and battling police in Tel Aviv were hardly inspired by

paid activists with forty thousand dollar a year salaries and 401Ks, but

by those who heroically abandoned all respectability and asserted their

identity as a threat to the establishment.

US fascism would not have established itself so securely, with every

safeguard in place and every mechanism utilized at its disposal to

stifle the growth of revolutionary consciousness of Black people in the

US were we not innately and at our deepest core threatening to the white

power structure. Acknowledgement of this orientation puts US fascism on

the defensive. A movement of angry Black people should be threatening.

It should heighten contradictions, it should make those invested in the

status quo uneasy, and it should provoke raging emotions in ourselves as

well as our class enemies.

The movement for Black Autonomy, although nascent, is the inevitable

outgrowth of a decaying strategy of reformist appeals to power. We know

Black lives matter. The question is whether or not we have the capacity

to check any attempts at devaluation by counterrevolutionary elements

from the outside and from within. The autonomous movement is building

this capacity, synthesizing elements of anarchism and revolutionary

socialism. Modern examples of this type of political self-determination

include the Kurdish PYD/PKK in Syria and Turkey and the Zapatistas and

Autodefensas in Mexico.

The autonomous movement explicitly rejects of the kind of separatist

reactionary nationalismwhich is unfortunately endemic to many formations

within the Black Liberation movement. It rejects the hetero-patriarchal

ethos that women should be relegated to servant status. It rejects the

demonization of Black queer and trans people and instead uplifts them as

leaders. We hold that one immediately relinquishes the role of

“vanguard” if one subscribes to Eurocentric authoritarian

hetero-patriarchal standards of gender and their corresponding roles as

the norm.

The movement for Black autonomy does not include coexistence with white

supremacist authority in its platform. We understand that the

development of a scientific, intersectional revolutionary political

theory that is applicable to our specific material conditions in the US,

and our development of a praxis that tangibly counters the power of

white supremacist institutions that control our lives, is the difference

between being victims of genocide or soldiers at war. We understand that

the striving for autonomy means provoking violent reactionary resistance

to our advances. We accept this. We understand that Black liberation

means human liberation, so we act in solidarity with the oppressed. Long

live the Black resistance. We have nothing to lose but our chains!

Dangers of Funding

Written by Kai

[Filler Collective // AID-USAS Local #13 // Divestment Student Network

// Pittsburgh Student Solidarity Coalition // Pgh Autonomous Student

Network]

Fuck respectability politics. Social and environmental justice will not

be achieved by some suits in an exclusive boardroom meeting. If you

don’t recall, that’s how we found ourselves in this mess to begin with.

If you organize within a “professional” or reformist or non-profit

framework, you must also recognize the need for others to do

revolutionary, explicitly anti-capitalist work. If you are a college

student or otherwise not subject to the “real world” like myself and

still trying to figure out your place in activism or radical organizing,

I urge you to think outside of the non-profit industrial complex and

explore ways of living and working that stretch your imagination beyond

existing neoliberal and capitalist structures. It can be done.

In early July I shared a space in New York City with young organizers

from 10 different states, all at varying stages of creating or growing a

student power state-wide network. An organizer out of Philly that I met

serendipitously months ago had reached out to me and another friend

interested in establishing a Pgh-Philly connection in hopes of growing a

more cohesive Pennsylvania-wide movement. A staff member from Student

Power Network bought my Greyhound ticket from Pittsburgh to NYC Thursday

afternoon – at 6:15am the next day, I boarded my bus. I arrived at the

station in NYC around 5:30pm and immediately headed to the Murphy

Institute where I was told most of the conference would be taking place.

At this point I knew virtually nothing about who organized the meeting,

who was going to be there, or the purpose of the weekend.

A charismatic 42-year-old man named Billy Whimsett helped to welcome

everyone – Billy would become a large piece of the enigmatic puzzle I

was introduced to over the course of the weekend that culminated in a

number of presentations at the Ford Foundation intended to entice

large-scale donors into funding this new model for a “grassroots”

student movement.

I came to learn that Billy was an author, founder of several

organizations and incubators, most recently Gamechanger Labs, and had

fundraised over $10 million for politically progressive non-profits and

organizations over the years. Gamechanger Labs was the incubator for

Student Power Network, which was aiming to replicate state-wide student

power across the country after Billy saw what was happening organically

with the Ohio Student Association and the Dream Defenders in Florida. A

sentiment I heard echoed from different people throughout the weekend

was that Billy was a “complicated” character, whatever that means.

The weekend was generally relaxed compared to other intentional

conferences/trainings – starting on time wasn’t strictly enforced and

there was a lot of “structured unstructured” time where we could bring

to the table specific topics/issues we wanted to talk about. I took

advantage of this to create space to talk about respectability politics,

making activist spaces more accessible and the dangers of the non-profit

industrial complex and brainstorming ideas of how to circumvent that.

The first conversation dedicated to respectability politics and the

accessibility of “activist spaces” turned into an impromptu people of

color caucus where we delved into the dilemma of double consciousness

and how it was necessary for organizers of color to be cognizant of how

we act and adapt in accordance to ideas of professionalism and well,

whiteness. The next conversation we had on how to deal with the growing

non-profit industrial complex was ironic given the circumstances of the

weekend – several of the folks there were recently full-time organizers

who were dependent on grants and other sources of funding to get by.

The other young activists I met throughout the weekend were all on point

– radical, militant, and unapologetic. I met several folks that I am

sure I will cross paths with again in the near future and look forward

to seeing all that they accomplish in the coming years. However, there

was a weird tension I felt throughout the weekend because here is the

reality – we need money. There’s not a lot of money in organizing. We

got bills to pay, kids to feed, and other shit to take care. Although

we’d like to dedicate all our time and energy to attacking the

imperialist, capitalist, patriarchal system we live in, it’s hard when

you don’t got money. One of the most common ways to tackle this is

through grant writing and other ways of asking for money from those that

do have it. How do we get that money without conceding to the existing

power and influence that comes with having money?

After a weekend of learning and fruitful conversations, young organizers

from each of the states where a student power network was growing

presented on stage at the Ford Foundation in front of wealthy funders

who we were told were “on the same page” in terms of our politics, but

that was (and continues to be) a hard pill for me to swallow. The Ford

Foundation is the second largest foundation in the country and is an

organization that has the power to give out million-dollar grants

without blinking. It was also created in 1936 by industrialist and

capitalist Henry Ford along with his wife, Edsel Ford. Those in the

audience, we were told, were once in the same boat as us – young

activists dedicated to anti-racist, anti-capitalist organizing. They

were now the people young activists had to woo to give them tens or

hundreds of thousands of dollars. Immediately it appears there is a

glaring conflict of interest – my assumption is that to be in a position

of that much money or power is that you play the capitalist game and

that it’s in your best interest that the game continue. Here are young

people on stage describing actions and organizing efforts in direct

confrontation with the current system (that you are profiting off of)

and their intentions to build a new one.

Let’s assume that these wealthy funders are all on board with

revolutionary change and tearing down the capitalist system. Even at the

most basic level of the exchange taking place, the principle behind it

is assuredly self-defeating and perpetuating the very power dynamics we

aim to change. Here are young folks having to explain to rich (mainly

white) funders why the work they’ve done is worth their time and money.

Look at what we’ve done, and lend us legitimacy and give us the power to

continue because you, with your money, can determine what history will

look like. It’s in your hands.

One major issue with this relationship is the narrative that is being

told and how history will be remembered. The climate justice movement

regularly erases the work of indigenous people and other people of color

because of the overwhelming white narrative. An example of this is an

article that was posted covering a march for Jobs, Justice, and the

Climate held in Toronto on July 5th. The article named a bunch of the

high-profile “climate leaders” present, such as Bill McKibben,

co-founder of 350.org, describing him to have “Done more than almost

anyone to put climate change on the agenda, leading the charge…” While

McKibben has been on the forefront of denouncing climate change, so have

countless others (read: PEOPLE OF COLOR, INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, LOW-INCOME

PEOPLE, all of whom are disproportionately affected by climate change

and are disproportionately paying the cost of an extractive,

exploitative economy), but because of McKibben’s status and power

through money, he will be the one remembered as leading the charge ten

years from now. We must intentionally change the narrative or run the

risk of perpetuating the very system we claim to be fighting.

We need not only a redistribution of wealth, but a redistribution done

in a radical way. Not a redistribution where those already with money

and power and voice are setting the precedent for what a new system

would look like. We need funding for revolutionary organizing but must

be conscious of how that funding affects our organizing and actively

explore ways to challenge traditional models and methods of exchange.

With grants, there are often deliverables and tangible results that the

recipient must meet and point to in order to justify to the funder that

the recipient is doing what they are told. Funding changes the narrative

in more subtle ways as well – organizations must cater to certain grants

by choosing language carefully and at times even changing their

priorities in terms of campaigns, strategy, etc. I’ve heard grant

writing described as an art - one must craft a request in such a way

that it promises to meet criteria set by the funder but still stay true

to the goal that the recipient sets out to achieve. This is a slippery

slope. We can see how monitoring language here and there becomes a

larger issue when it begins to affect the messaging as a whole.

At the 2015 US Social Forum in Philadelphia, PA, there was a workshop

regarding legal aid for future actions at the 2016 Democratic and

Republican National Conventions. One of the speakers was a lawyer who

was committed to defending protesters and activists. When asked about

his opinion on certain tactics used by protestors and what he thought

would be most effective, he clearly stated that it was not his role to

say. He went on to explain that he stands behind the movement and in

order to do so requires trust in organizers and their judgment; he

recognized that we each have a role to play in the larger fight for

social justice. His role is to guide activists through the legal

bureaucratic bullshit and freely deferred questions about organizing to

those that were on the front lines. This reflects trust in others in the

movement and humility through recognition of our individual roles.

Similarly, if we could establish funding in such a way that large sums

of money were not given in a coercive manner or as a symbol of power, it

could instead reflect trust and solidarity. However, until that day

comes, I will be suspicious of large foundations that are notorious for

advancing neoliberal and imperialist agendas while professing to be

socially progressive. The revolution will not be funded.

How do we move forward from here? What does it look like to challenge

ideas of corporatization, privatization and capitalism in the way we

organize? I’m not sure – I’m just starting to ask these questions and

explore. Thankfully, there’s a wealth of much more experienced folks out

there who are and have been actively exploring avenues through worker

cooperatives, intentional collective living spaces, and alternative

solidarity economies. It’s overwhelming to be sure, but exciting to

struggle with the fact that the legitimacy of the rules we live by now

are entirely dependent on us being complicit; we need creativity and

imagination to start making up our own rules.

“It’s good to see Ford finally putting money back into Detroit,” an

organizer from Michigan began his pitch. And it was good to be reminded

of why we’re in this mess in the first place.

Not convinced in the dangers of the non-profit industrial complex? Check

out the comic / zine,“Non-Profit Industrial Complex” Or the book it’s

based on, The Revolution Will Not Be Funded by INCITE! Women of Color

Against Violence

Who’s Co-opting Whom?

Written by A. Sid

[Filler Collective // Students for Justice in Palestine // Pittsburgh

Student Solidarity Coalition // Pgh Autonomous Student Network]

For centuries, the American political system has served one primary

function: to act as a safety valve for this nation’s most vital dissent.

By funneling voters into one of two camps, the American ruling class has

effectively nullified any and all populist causes that do not receive

lip service from either political party. When one of the parties does

decide to embrace the desires of their constituents, they do so in the

least effective manner possible, opting instead for surface level

changes that appease enough of the population to defuel the cause.

Bernie Sanders’s recent call for a “political revolution” has ignited a

fire in the hearts and minds of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing.

Sanders’ economic populism is a welcome sight for a nation still

struggling to escape the mire of recession. But for many on the left,

Sanders’ decision to run as a Democrat is disheartening enough to

dismiss him altogether. In conjunction with his stances on the Israeli

oppression of the Palestinian people and the Black Lives Matter

movement, this has made Bernie seem soft in the eyes of the far left.

Once again, our end of the spectrum has chosen to forsake the political

process in favor of the tried-and-true methods of direct action and

outside agitation.

Herein lies our failure. Our refusal to work with the system is borne

out of an entirely justified fear of having our causes co-opted and our

missions left incomplete. History has taught us that expecting the

system to deliver the reforms we seek is a futile task. But if we’re

willing to dig deeper, we find that systemic change can indeed be

achieved through the system. A prominent example can be found in the

fall of the Soviet Union. In 1989, a bevy of Soviet satellites held

elections – preceded by massive protests – which freed these newly

independent nations from Moscow’s clutches. By ousting the Communists,

the former Soviet republics established democratic systems that,

although still plagued by corruption and oppression, allowed for

infinitely more freedom than the USSR did.

After centuries of inadequate solutions to economic injustice, systemic

racism, excessive militarism, and every other battle the left has fought

and lost, our fear is that the system will embrace our cause with one

hand and legislate it into irrelevance with the other. But when the

people cry out for the destruction of the system itself, the political

elite find themselves in a bind:either deny the people’s wishes and

reveal their so-called democracy to be a sham, or accept and cede

control over the American political process.

Drastic restructuring of the American political system is not as radical

a cause as one might think. Voters from all walks of life – whether

Republican or Democrat, young or old, white or black – feel that the

system does not serve them. Specifically, Americans harbor a great deal

of resentment towards a bipartisan political system that is increasingly

polarized and ineffectual. Although politically moderate (at least

relative to the far left), these citizens can easily be convinced to

support a seemingly radical cause so long as it comes draped in the

phony fabric of political legitimacy.

As it stands, the only candidate capable of conveying such a message is

Bernie Sanders. A lifelong independent, Sanders has repeatedly called

for measures – such as the public financing of elections and rigorous

campaign finance reform – which would drastically reduce the power of

the two political parties. It is not unreasonable to assume that Sanders

could be pushed further. But for this to happen, the restructuring of

America’s political system must become the defining issue of the 2016

presidential race.

This is where we outside agitators must direct our efforts. By no means

am I suggesting we devote our energy to the Sanders campaign. Rather, we

must create an environment in which any viable presidential candidate

must be dedicated to substantive structural reform of the American

political system. Thus far, the only candidate for whom such a stance

seems feasible is Sanders, but the identity of the mouthpiece matters

not. What matters is that the only cause captivating the public during

the much-touted first hundred days of the next Presidency be busting the

two biggest trusts this nation has ever known: the Democratic Party and

the GOP.

The ebb of flow of American political power has reached a pivotal point.

We live in a nation ostensibly bound to the democratic process whose

citizens feel alienated enough to abstain from democracy altogether. In

this time and in this place, we have a chance to change everything. Our

job? Converting America’s widespread political disaffection into action.

Our targets? The very visible elected figureheads preserving the

American oligarchy. By making our presence known in the traditional

political sphere – through local direct action everywhere we can reach –

we can break through the false dichotomy that permeates the chambers of

power across the nation. By focusing on campaign finance and electoral

reform, we can tap into two issues that draw the ire of broad swathes of

the population while also possessing the potential to decentralize

political power.

Eliminating legal barriers to entry for third-party candidates would be

the next step, ensuring that the most pressing issues – whether local,

state, or federal – have someone to speak for them. Further reforms to

combat the exclusion of undesirable voters would be needed on a

case-by-case basis, in situations such as Jeb Bush’s 2000 purge of

Florida’s voting polls or the recent spate of voter ID laws. The

specifics can be dealt with later. What cannot be postponed is the

struggle to revitalize our democracy.

To many of my comrades who fight to end capitalism and bourgeois

democracy, this may appear a betrayal. If our ultimate goal, however, is

the decentralization of economic and political power, then certainly any

step in that direction is progress – so long as we continue the fight.

Furthermore, the existence of a mass movement can serve as a buffer to

political subversion, particularly a movement with these goals. So long

as there remain voices within the movement clamoring for further

decentralization, power cannot remain apart from the people forever.

These first steps are nevertheless vital, and it is vital we accomplish

them quickly, for the clock is ticking. Climate change poses an

existential threat to all humanity and dark clouds of war loom on the

horizon. Will our system stand between us and destruction?