Photo: Stacy Lanyon
I had been invited to the general assemblies leading up to
the occupation and had been peripheral to that. I have a tendency to hold off
on getting involved in things because I’m very critical of the anarchist scene
in New York in particular, and things frequently have a tendency to produce
more drama than anything else. I tend to hold back until something is
happening, which is maybe silly of me because maybe if I were involved,
something would happen. I went down the first day to see what was happening. It
didn’t seem like much was going on. I continued to keep an eye on it, and when
things began to pick up more steam, I became more and more involved.
I never stayed in the park because I live in New York. I didn’t need to. I wasn’t going to give up my house. Unlike a lot of other people, I understood it to be an action that was very temporary. I’m shocked, frankly, that it lasted as long as it did. Those things usually get shut down in the first 48 hours, which is why I was like, “I’m not giving up my house to get arrested in 48 hours.” It ended up lasting a really long time, and I think that happened because the NYPD underestimated the scope of what it would be, and once they recognized what it had become, it was too big to stamp out in the way they ultimately ended up doing anyway. I think they held off because it was getting so much attention. Then, they destroyed it because it was getting so much attention.
I never stayed in the park because I live in New York. I didn’t need to. I wasn’t going to give up my house. Unlike a lot of other people, I understood it to be an action that was very temporary. I’m shocked, frankly, that it lasted as long as it did. Those things usually get shut down in the first 48 hours, which is why I was like, “I’m not giving up my house to get arrested in 48 hours.” It ended up lasting a really long time, and I think that happened because the NYPD underestimated the scope of what it would be, and once they recognized what it had become, it was too big to stamp out in the way they ultimately ended up doing anyway. I think they held off because it was getting so much attention. Then, they destroyed it because it was getting so much attention.
As far as the park itself and what it was like, it was like
a lot of tent cities that I’ve seen and been a part of. It was hectic, with a
lot of people, a lot of activities, a lot of disconnected activities. There were a lot
of dirty people in tents, which is what you can expect with people who are
living in tents in the middle of a city. That was not a criticism, just an
observation. I did a shift or three in the medic station. We got people who had
hurt their feet from walking around barefoot, a lot of sore throats from chanting
in the daily marches and a lot of colds because people were sleeping outside
and not eating right. Homeless people who were around in that neighborhood
would come to the medical tent as well. Much like later in Union Square, we
came to their thing. They didn’t come to our thing. They were around anyway. There was food and medical care. Obviously, they were going to come.
I become involved in Direct Action. As an extension of
that, we created the Trainers' Working Group, which was people who were giving trainings - direct action trainings, facilitation
trainings, medic trainings. We decided that we wanted to not have them
conflict. We also wanted to have them be as unified as possible thematically,
so that we all knew what each other was teaching because they are all actually
very connected. As far as my involvement with the Direct Action Working Group, I started going to
meetings. I then met a lot of people, and I was involved in doing a lot of the
asking the general assembly for money for things. There were a few default people
who ended up doing that. It was people who were funny or attractive or knew how
to work a room. I was pretty heavily involved for a good chunk of time before I
ultimately decided to step out of the movement.
I left quite a while ago. It had a lot to do with the
anti-anarchist thing, the diversity of tactics debate. Diversity of tactics was
very divisive, which is funny because diversity of tactics as a framework was
created for insurrectionary anarchists and NGO liberals to work together. That’s
what it was created to accommodate, and then it, itself, became a point of
contention. There were really hardline pacifists and people with really liberal
understandings of how social change happens, and pop culture understandings of
history, which is very narrow and event specific understandings of how things
like the Civil Rights Movement worked. There were also people who had been doing more
anarchist or anarchic-communist organizing who understood social change to
happen through a huge spectrum of methods of putting pressure on the state,
putting pressure on capitalist systems, that could and should include basically
anything anyone felt drawn to do that they could make a compelling case for.
That sounds very vague. What I mean by that is, “Oh, you think that this bank
needs to have its windows smashed and be defaced? Okay, why this bank and why
right now?”
I think a big difference in that was that some of us thought that anyone should do anything that they think is the right thing to do because we didn't feel like we we’re in a position to tell anyone what was right or wrong versus people who thought that everything should go through a central decision making body. Some people wanted Direct Action to be that body. Some people wanted the General Assembly to be that body. Some people wanted the Spokes Council to be the body. A lot of us pushed really hard against that because we didn’t want any one authority making the decisions or for there to be authority at all. I think, ultimately, that’s where the huge split came from. I know that a lot of people that I felt an affinity with and was working really closely with left either directly because of that or indirectly because of that split.
I think a big difference in that was that some of us thought that anyone should do anything that they think is the right thing to do because we didn't feel like we we’re in a position to tell anyone what was right or wrong versus people who thought that everything should go through a central decision making body. Some people wanted Direct Action to be that body. Some people wanted the General Assembly to be that body. Some people wanted the Spokes Council to be the body. A lot of us pushed really hard against that because we didn’t want any one authority making the decisions or for there to be authority at all. I think, ultimately, that’s where the huge split came from. I know that a lot of people that I felt an affinity with and was working really closely with left either directly because of that or indirectly because of that split.
I actually have been thinking a lot about the subject of
infighting. I don’t know if you’re familiar with what’s going on with Deep Green
Resistance (DGR). It’s this radical environmental organization that was started
to do really militant things around environmental action. The founders are
deeply transphobic and authoritarian. Recently, Bluestockings Bookstore decided
that they would never again post a speaking event from Deep Green Resistance because
they are militantly transphobic. This is caused some divisions in that movement. This is why I’ve been thinking about infighting.
I think that it happens for a number of reasons. There are very real
disagreements that are substantive and do actually get in the way of us working
together, amongst people of various philosophical bents. In a lot of ways, we
do disagree with what’s wrong, what to do about it and what we’re even working
towards. That’s real. If those disagreements exist, why would we work together? Also, I think we can’t reach the state itself in a lot of ways. We can’t reach
global capitalism because it’s so big and so far away in many ways, but we can
reach each other, so we lash out at each other. The disagreement I have with
say Ray Kelly, I’ll never get to talk to that man, but I do have the
opportunity to talk to you, person who also said something I disagree with. A
lot of the frustration that we have with those figures ends up in our own
networks.
When I say why would we work together, I just want to be very clear about what
I do mean and don’t mean by that. I do not think that pacifist liberals are
really going to end up working on longer term escalating projects with insurrectionary
anarchists. It’s just not going to work because we have different understanding
about what needs to happen and why, but I do think that it is possible for
those two categories of people to work together on projects in a sustained way
that’s totally fine - Food Not Bombs, Prison Book Projects, Community Health
Projects, Community Garden Projects. Those sorts of things that both sides
understand to be necessary and good can totally happen. It’s just that we
shouldn’t expect that we’re going to be able to work with each other on every
single project or that we’re never going to end up at cross-purposes because we
are going to. We have to be able to recognize that and then just do whatever we
are going to do without the expectation that we’re not ever then also going to
end up working on the same project again. I think people have an expectation
that both states are going to be permanent, that when we split, it’s going to
be forever and that when we are together, that’s going to be forever. Both of
those are not the case.
I think the question of how people of two opposing ideologies come to work together is a really huge
question and one that every movement ever has been trying to figure out and not
really succeeded at. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have a state anymore. My particular
wing nutty politics are that I don’t believe in prefigurative politics. I don’t
think that we’re in a position to say what comes next. We’re just not there
yet, so I always hold off on making those predictions. I also think that things
like mutual aid projects are very much of the spot we’re in now, a direct
response to what’s happening now. If the state were to disappear tomorrow, or
if global capitalism were to die tomorrow, that’s not what the world would look
like. They are great and nutritive and help people in their own way and should
happen, but they are also not tomorrow. I think what needs to happen as far as
trying to accomplish things right now is that people need to recognize that you
don’t have the authority to tell anyone what they should or shouldn’t do, that
it is entirely likely that we will find ourselves at cross-purposes. Even harsh criticism needs to be done in a way that
leaves space for that person to do the right thing tomorrow.
I think Deep Green Resistance is deeply transphobic. I think
it’s structured in an incredibly authoritarian and hierarchical way. I also
think that a lot of the things they are working on are necessary and urgent. I
don’t think that Deep Green Resistance as an organization will survive this
controversy very well, but I think that when people criticize Deep Green Resistance,
they are saying, “You are doing things that are wrong. Stop it.” But I don’t
think the people working in Deep Green Resistance should stop working on
environmental issues. I don’t think that environmental issues are the problem. The problem is a very narrow set of idealogical positions that are bringing the movement down because
they are divisive. If people could set those down and go back to working on
environmental stuff, then everything will be fine as far as that movement is
concerned. I think people need to keep that in mind both when they are
receiving criticism and also when they are giving it.
For example, in Occupy, I think a lot of people were critical of attempts to take that plot of land owned by Trinity, very critical. I was one of them even though I was very much a part of that project. I think that, at least internally, the way that the criticisms were happening was very constructive. I don’t necessarily think that this particular square was as important as some people seemed to think it was. I also don’t think that we’ll be able to take public space in the same way again because the state is expecting it at this point, so maybe we should be putting our energy elsewhere. Ultimitely, that attempt failed. I was not going to stop people from trying because they felt it was urgent, and maybe I’m wrong. I think that that’s the way to go.
For example, in Occupy, I think a lot of people were critical of attempts to take that plot of land owned by Trinity, very critical. I was one of them even though I was very much a part of that project. I think that, at least internally, the way that the criticisms were happening was very constructive. I don’t necessarily think that this particular square was as important as some people seemed to think it was. I also don’t think that we’ll be able to take public space in the same way again because the state is expecting it at this point, so maybe we should be putting our energy elsewhere. Ultimitely, that attempt failed. I was not going to stop people from trying because they felt it was urgent, and maybe I’m wrong. I think that that’s the way to go.
I think people responded so strongly to Occupy because people
recognized that their material conditions were deteriorating in many
ways and also that the earth itself is in a pretty grave condition. People were articulating those facts. Even if people didn’t understand what people were
trying to achieve or where they were going with that understanding, they were relieved to have someone expressing that, making that physical and
textual. I think that’s why people responded so strongly to it. I think
attempts are important as long as we are willing to learn from them when and if
they fail. I think people in some way understanding that they are an agent and
have the ability to affect the world around them, that is important.
I think that articulating an anti-capitalist position is important so that it becomes in many ways normalized and people get used to talking about resisting capitalism as such instead of this one corporation or this one bank. I also think that conversation about, “Hey, actually, anarchists do a lot of things besides the one or two things that you hear about in the news once a year” was important in the sense that it made people visible and normalized that ideological position for a lot of people. I think that it’s important for us, even if our projects fail, to have an obligation to try to intervene when we know that something wrong is happening, and I think that’s where a lot of what was happening came from, that understanding, that something must be done, and even if this one thing doesn’t work, maybe it will create understandings or opportunities for other things that will.
I think that articulating an anti-capitalist position is important so that it becomes in many ways normalized and people get used to talking about resisting capitalism as such instead of this one corporation or this one bank. I also think that conversation about, “Hey, actually, anarchists do a lot of things besides the one or two things that you hear about in the news once a year” was important in the sense that it made people visible and normalized that ideological position for a lot of people. I think that it’s important for us, even if our projects fail, to have an obligation to try to intervene when we know that something wrong is happening, and I think that’s where a lot of what was happening came from, that understanding, that something must be done, and even if this one thing doesn’t work, maybe it will create understandings or opportunities for other things that will.
Global industrial capitalism is destroying the world in a
very literal, physical way – acidic oceans, the bees are dying, the polar ice
caps are melting. Hurricane Sandy happened because of global warming, which is
being caused by industrial capitalism, which is the practice of extracting
resources and labor to benefit a very small number of people while everyone
else gets screwed over. I think that also capitalism as a system demands and
cannot function without poverty and material deprivation. People need to be
motivated to go work these shitty factory jobs, and the way that that happens
is by making those people poor and not meeting all of their needs, so that they
have to work more and more, and also using the extreme poverty of some people
as an implicit threat. That’s why people continue to live in extreme poverty
despite the fact that we have enough for everyone.
If resources were distributed differently, no one would starve to death. Everyone would have access to medical care. That’s not the case. Why? Because those people are necessary in order for that system to continue to function. It’s like how a boat needs a certain amount of water in the bottom of the hull to stay balanced. If we look at capitalism in a global sense, that’s why certain countries are allowed to continue to deteriorate or people in those countries are left to die, while resources are extracted from their country and none of people who live there benefit. I would argue that the things that people point to like extreme poverty, lack of access to medical care, the anti-worker legislation and the repeal of pro-worker laws, like the repeal of the 40 hour work week, they see it as the state and capitalism not functioning. That is in fact them doing exactly what they do. That is capitalism functioning. That is them doing their job. If someone gets shot, that’s not a gun malfunctioning. That’s a gun doing what guns do. So then the question becomes, “Do we want this?”
If resources were distributed differently, no one would starve to death. Everyone would have access to medical care. That’s not the case. Why? Because those people are necessary in order for that system to continue to function. It’s like how a boat needs a certain amount of water in the bottom of the hull to stay balanced. If we look at capitalism in a global sense, that’s why certain countries are allowed to continue to deteriorate or people in those countries are left to die, while resources are extracted from their country and none of people who live there benefit. I would argue that the things that people point to like extreme poverty, lack of access to medical care, the anti-worker legislation and the repeal of pro-worker laws, like the repeal of the 40 hour work week, they see it as the state and capitalism not functioning. That is in fact them doing exactly what they do. That is capitalism functioning. That is them doing their job. If someone gets shot, that’s not a gun malfunctioning. That’s a gun doing what guns do. So then the question becomes, “Do we want this?”
Everyone has a different understanding of what anarchism means to themselves, which is sort of the point. Broadly, people who identify as anarchists are typically asserting that they believe that people should be involved in making decisions that directly affect them and that authority and hierarchy are inherently wrong and that everyone would be free to make the decisions that materially affect their lives. There's also the belief that everyone should be free to attempt to create the life that they want to live and that no one should be forced to be in a power relationship with anyone that they don’t want to be in a power relationship. Power exists all the time, and when you enter a relationship with someone, you are entering into a relationship of power. Anarchist also believe broadly, typically that we should be helping each other, that your wellbeing is necessary for mine, and that we should and can make efforts to take care of each other, which is where our mutual aid projects come in.
Also, most anarchists have taken an anti-capitalist stance because it is so coercive. We also typically believe that people should be free to make their own moral choices, which is why anarchists typically shy away from being overtly pacifist because many anarchists feel that an ideological pacifist position and the demand that everyone follow that line is an expression of authority, and people have to be free to make their own choices or mistakes. You can make an argument. You can say, “I think this is wrong because…,” but I can’t stop you. I won’t stop you from making a choice. I’ll intervene if it’s actually impacting people and if it’s actually hurting my community. I will definitely intervene, but you are still free to make a choice. I’m not going to stop you from having thoughts in your head. I’m not going to stop you from having the friends that you have, but I am going to stop you from hurting people. I am going to intervene and tell you that I don’t want that ideological framework in my life. I don’t want those actions in my life, but I can’t stop you from thinking, talking, having friends, having the conversations that you’re having. People have to be able to make their own mistakes and also learn from them, and also as an extension to that, be accountable for their own mistakes.
Also, most anarchists have taken an anti-capitalist stance because it is so coercive. We also typically believe that people should be free to make their own moral choices, which is why anarchists typically shy away from being overtly pacifist because many anarchists feel that an ideological pacifist position and the demand that everyone follow that line is an expression of authority, and people have to be free to make their own choices or mistakes. You can make an argument. You can say, “I think this is wrong because…,” but I can’t stop you. I won’t stop you from making a choice. I’ll intervene if it’s actually impacting people and if it’s actually hurting my community. I will definitely intervene, but you are still free to make a choice. I’m not going to stop you from having thoughts in your head. I’m not going to stop you from having the friends that you have, but I am going to stop you from hurting people. I am going to intervene and tell you that I don’t want that ideological framework in my life. I don’t want those actions in my life, but I can’t stop you from thinking, talking, having friends, having the conversations that you’re having. People have to be able to make their own mistakes and also learn from them, and also as an extension to that, be accountable for their own mistakes.
I’d like to see a world without state authority, a world
without capitalism, a world without domination. I am a nihilist. Let’s just
name it. So I don’t believe in prefigurative politics. I don’t think that I’m
in a position to say what that world would look like or feel like or be like to
live in. I also don’t think that that is a reason to not try and make it or
create space for it and give someone else the opportunity to build it. I like
to use this as my example. I don’t know if you watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer
at all? I’m a nerd, so I fucking do. There’s an alternate world
episode, and one of the characters is interacting with this magical demon that
created this alternate world that’s horrible, and he’s going to destroy her
power center and reset everything, and she says to him, “You don’t even know
what that’s going to do. What makes you so sure that the world that I change to
create this one is any better? It could be worse.” He says, “You know, I have
to take the chance.”
I think that that moment of choice is what I’m talking about. Things are horrible, and the course that we’re on is going to kill us, so even if we fail in the next iteration, without a state or capitalism, even if we fail again, we have to create an opportunity for that failure or success, which is equally possible. Just because we have failed, just becuase we are failing ourselves right now, it doesn’t mean that we always will. I also think that in creating that moment, we can’t assert our own reactive understandings and wishes on it because those are coming very much from this diseased moment, and so are going to be an extreme reaction and are going to be just as unbalanced as what is happening right now, so we have to just create space and let what happens in that space just happen in that space.
Interview by Stacy Lanyon
http://buildingcompassionthroughaction.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/stacylanyon
https://instagram.com/stacylanyon/
https://twitter.com/StacyLanyon
http://stacylanyon.com/
I think that that moment of choice is what I’m talking about. Things are horrible, and the course that we’re on is going to kill us, so even if we fail in the next iteration, without a state or capitalism, even if we fail again, we have to create an opportunity for that failure or success, which is equally possible. Just because we have failed, just becuase we are failing ourselves right now, it doesn’t mean that we always will. I also think that in creating that moment, we can’t assert our own reactive understandings and wishes on it because those are coming very much from this diseased moment, and so are going to be an extreme reaction and are going to be just as unbalanced as what is happening right now, so we have to just create space and let what happens in that space just happen in that space.
Interview by Stacy Lanyon
http://buildingcompassionthroughaction.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/stacylanyon
https://instagram.com/stacylanyon/
https://twitter.com/StacyLanyon
http://stacylanyon.com/