Pittsburgh: POG Statement on G20 Resistance

Poll

US Social Forum

1/1: Are you attending the US Social Forum

Yes!	7.45%
No	27.66%
Getting ready for the G20	7.45%
Watching the World Cup	23.40%
Busy at home	15.96%
Who? What?	18.09%

Wednesday, June 10 2009 @ 06:58 PM UTC

Contributed by: POG

With last week's announcement of the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, PA, this coming September, the Pittsburgh Organizing Group (POG) is issuing this statement in support of the formation of the anti-authoritarian working group helping coordinate resistance to the meeting of the leaders of our planet's 19 largest economies, along with the European Union.

Though we will participate as individuals in the working group in varying capacities, POG is offering to take the following actions in support of the working group's planning and to further general resistance to the summit.

Network: Release a call to action for September to articulate our opposition to the G-20 and to invite people to come resist the G-20 in support of, and alongside, the larger tactical framework crafted by the working group

Train and Educate: Between now and the summit, conduct a series of Tactical Training Initiatives relevant to the mobilization (schedule to be announced)

Hype-Up: Utilize our annual Anarchist Picnic (Saturday, August 1) as an occasion to help build awareness and momentum for the G20 protests, and possibly co-host a planning consulta that weekend

Confront: Take on the organizing for a protest to take place outside the city's planned media stunt briefing on August 5; an event at which they intend to lay out plans for the repression of social movements before and during the G20. If the working group has the desire and capacity to conduct the event themselves, we will gladly cede primary organizing to that body and assist as needed.

Call Out: Continue with our longstanding policy of responding directly, in conjunction with our community allies, with home demonstrations and other lawful means to those individuals who engage in, or facilitate, egregious acts of repression. Long after the G20 leaves, we will remain: the actions of individual police and politicians toward social movements will determine our movements' relationship with them for years to come.

Additionally, POG is putting forth this list of what we hope to see come out of the working group.

The working group operating as both an information clearinghouse and as the facilitator and creator of an action framework

The working group taking a proactive stance in cultivating an attitude of respect for our community, and working and poor people in our community

Creating a set of Pittsburgh Principles, regarding mutual respect for a diversity of tactics

A utilization of our group's resources (TTI, connections within the Northeast Anarchist Network, the Anarchist Picnic, et cetera) to support resistance to the G-20

A rejection of participating in any state-organized protest activities, “free speech” zones, or protest pits, and possibly choosing to not advertise such events

Adopting anti-oppression organizing principles and opposing systems of oppression generated by privilege and hierarchy, the state and capitalism; and actively addressing manifestations of those systems of oppression in our organizational structures, confronting sexism, heterosexism, racism, classism, et cetera.

The primary day of action be Thursday the 24th, and that there be a Festival of Resistance on Friday the 25th.

Once again, the preceding list is only suggestive, and our support for the working group is not at all contingent on the adoption of any or all of these suggestions. We look forward to the working group hammering out points of unity and a framework this weekend, and look even more forward to getting down to business this September. Keep an eye out for ways to plug in, as we get details figured out.

Pittsburgh Organizing Group
http://www.organizepittsburgh.org

Share

Pittsburgh: POG Statement on G20 Resistance | 14 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Authored by: tehanarchy on Thursday, June 11 2009 @ 12:37 AM UTC

Blunt confrontation with the enemy isn't a place where a small group of practically resource-less people possess any sort of strength against a leviathan empire.

Summits maximize none of our strengths.

- We have limited agility in this landscape.
- We surrender the ability to be where they're not, for in choosing a summit conflict we choose a conflict where they choose to be (heavily) present.
- We clearly don't advanced weaponry or even a basic militia. Therefore we lack the ability to fight those whom possess such advantages in a blunt force against force manner.

Summits may seem to work in other countries, but those countries are generally either satellite states or states with much different terms to fight under -- like a h'story where people have succeed in beating their government back and setting a precedent while they still had leverage --. The fact remains that to the date, no summit in the United States has been successful since the WTO actions (if you can even consider that a full blow success) in which folks caught the enemy in a surprise that has ceased to exist since.

Isn't this a clear enough indication that we should maybe try to be less predictable and maximize our strengths? It seems to be pretty apparent.

The apparatus of the state has evolved the abilities necessary to completely render our current tactics useless or at a cost to great for our tiny circles to handle (Thousands of dollars of legal funds and the few of us that exist serving unnecessary lengthy prison sentences.).

With that said, I would advise those planning on showing up to the G20 to either show up anywhere but there or figure out how they can catch their opponent by complete surprise.

At this point we cant afford anymore mistakes.

Authored by: CaseyFord on Thursday, June 11 2009 @ 12:52 AM UTC

Oh good, more self-righteous lectures.

People are not stupid. Most of us understand the pros and cons of summit protests and will develop our strategies and actions with those pros and cons in mind.

Authored by: biofilo on Thursday, June 11 2009 @ 01:35 AM UTC

As "Sweet Tea" hints below, I think you're thinking in the terms of the state--militarily--rather than thinking in terms appropriate to social conflict (dare I say social war). For example, you say:

"The fact remains that to the date, no summit in the United States has been successful since the WTO actions (if you can even consider that a full blow success)"

If you don't count the WTO as a success, I don't know what could count as a success. And the string of summits after it--A16, the 2000 DNC and RNC, Quebec City, events in Cincinnati, etc.--WERE successful at broadening and sharpening the anarchist movement in the US, regardless of whether the explicitly espoused (and perhaps actually irrelevant) "military" goals were achieved.

We are in a social conflict, not a military engagement. Were Sun Tzu alive today, he would presumably advise us accordingly. It's not a matter of where we can do the most financial damage or most successfully avoid legal repercussions, but where our acts of resistance are most likely to inspire others and contribute to horizontal distributions of agency, and where the legal repercussions of resistance (which we will always face, whether in the RNC 8 or Operation Backfire) are counterbalanced by the possibility of effective support and perhaps even radicalizing the public dialogue.

All that said, I hope that people will bring clever new ideas to the G20 organizing, as you urge. But that's most likely to happen from folks actually proposing new ideas, not just shouting "No, not this!!" once more.

Authored by: nolalove on Thursday, June 11 2009 @ 12:49 PM UTC

"at this point we can afford anymore mistakes"
The mistake is being such a pessimist and cynical in your analysis. You sound like too many ex summit hoppers who just work on an exclusive project and sit back and piss criticism into the wind.
Even when these large summits are a total cluster fuck our logistics get better and better. FNB type groups network regionally to support such actions medics and L/O's train more medics and L/O's local groups get a chance to do national level work that hopefully compliments what they work on locally. These summits are a proving ground still to see what can be done where people realize that sometimes teargas lets you see things more clearly.
A grass roots response was a reality in NOLA after katrina but failed after subsequent national disasters until the coal ash pond busted in TN then bam radicals doing the things they say a government should.
Should we not continue to grow and learn from past fuck ups rather than bemoan that we'll never riot like the greeks? Took them shaking off a military dictatorship and many martyrs before they had a real culture of street fighting at demonstrations.
The seeds of rebellion will only grow when they fall on fertile ground so don't be a jerk and don't salt that fertile soil with your pessimism.

Authored by: sweet tea on Thursday, June 11 2009 @ 01:01 AM UTC

While i agree with tehaanarchy's (somewhat dated, at this point) critiue of the mass action model, I would object to a few things here.

First, the first objections they are making here are military in nature, and on that level they are certainly correct. Sun Tzu would never send us in to battle in pittsburgh this september, for all the reasons they have laid out here. i study self defense and martial arts and military encounters, and i would agree on this level. However, social conflict and anarchist struggle cant be understood on strictly military terms, for pretty obvious reasons. NO protest we attend, campaign we engage in, or propaganda we create tends to look promising on this level yet we do them anyway and often do actually succeed. Yes, the physical limitations must be considered, but the State will always have a monopoly on force, by definition. We still must engage with it physically; sometimes summits have been the right place to do that, and sometimes they havent been. The reasons why they work are not strictly military.

Second, recent G20 and other summit mobilizations which have found success did not just occur in "satelite" states. I would hardly call downtown london a satellite state, nor would i call athens greece or france satellite states, where major pitched battles (physical and often military in understanding) with the state and capital have taken place. It is true, as tehanarchy states, that these places have a tradition of resistance that we dont in some ways. But this teleological thinking really: they have that culture of resisting summits militantly because theyve created it; they created it by showing up and fighting. Let's not defeat ourselves before we begin. The US also has a proud history of streetfighting and class/social war to draw from, and pittsburgh is one of the cities where that history is strong, as POG points out.

I think people acting away from Pittsburgh, in addition to attacking the enemy where they are, is a great idea. We have a history of that too; the g8 that took place off the coast of GA years ago was interestingly countered by an action hundreds of miles away in NC. But often those calls for autonomous actions dont materialize here in the US either.

Personally speaking, i m excited about the possibilities of Pittsburgh and the G20, and hope that some kinds of militant resistance can be presented both there and away from there.

Authored by: butternut on Thursday, June 11 2009 @ 09:49 AM UTC

A big problem is always quantifying success. Was the RNC a success? In many ways yes, in many ways no. We didn't stop the convention from happening, and we walked away with too many felony and terrorism charges. But at the same time, it was completely energizing for me and others, networks like BB! formed up, and for many of us it was an opportunity to see the State Gone Wild. It was also a radicalizing experience for a lot of non-combatants too, my parents (who are complete square-asses), despite all their apologizing and support for the status quo, have a better idea of how this country really works after hearing about state violence in St. Paul.

I know a number of POG folks were active in the RNC spokes, and had some good insights there about how to react to changing situations. I trust them to have a good grasp of what needs to be done and how to get there. And I really hope they also use this as a laboratory for expanding and re-envisioning social war in the streets and how to strengthen it. Summits NEED people to break shit in the streets, there needs to be opposition. But that shouldn't mean we can't be creative and find a new model where we still break shit, but where something good comes of it. Cuz most of us I think are tired of getting fucked up by the police while people march in circles or knock over dumpsters.

Authored by: engine summer on Sunday, June 14 2009 @ 03:39 PM UTC

"Summits NEED people to break shit in the streets"
why? this seems a very "reactivist" type comment...

Authored by: engine summer on Sunday, June 14 2009 @ 03:41 PM UTC

Authored by: nostalgia on Thursday, June 11 2009 @ 04:47 PM UTC

Biofilo "We are in a social conflict, not a military engagement."

It's a bit of a stretch to call most of the summit counter-demonstrations
that have happened in the US "social" conflicts. That is, the
confrontational elements of these engagements tend to be a few small
groups of insular anarchist circles that get together, knock some big bad
newspaper boxes over, and post photos on the internet about how, despite
all the federal surveillance and infiltration, hundreds of arrests, and
dozens of felony convictions, 4 people broke 6 windows.

What I'm saying is that actions against summits tend to be comprised
almost entirely of specialists/activists, people whose primary identity is
their political affiliation. I'm afraid that often, these actions
reinforce the activist/common person division that hinders social
struggle.

In the US, people outside of our small-ass political circles tend to stay
the fuck away from these events (with maybe one exception), therefore
creating a situation where conflict feels scripted, an easily controlable
self-isolating struggle that carries with it an inbuilt beginning and
ending.

Struggles that aren't so formulaic, that aren't so political (that is,
they are a response to tangible social relations and not to summits whose
topics of discussion tend to be known only to a small political minority)
have the potential to go beyond containment, to not be defined on the
terms of our enemies (the date, time, and location of their choosing, when
they have months and often years to implant federal agents into our
communities, when every cop within a hundred miles will be looking for us
before we hit the streets), and to become truly popular.

In January Oakland saw a wave of conflict that was relatively popular and
lasted for the entirety of the month. The major players in the most
disruptive incidents were not anarchists, and come from outside of our
political circles, however, anarchists played an important role in the
struggles. There was no inbuilt ending, people no one knew were calling
for militant street actions that people actually came out to, high school
students staged countless walkouts, there were a few different riots,
clandestine actions everywhere, etc. LA 1992, Cincinatti 2001, St
Petersburg, FL 2004, Benton Harbor 2003 ("It was very violent," Benton
Harbor Police Chief Sam Harris said. "We had gunfire. They shot at our
trucks, they shot at the captain of police, ran barricades."). These
conflicts, while not ideal, have the potential to go beyond the point of
control, to create scenarios where everyone feels the desire to
participate, where conflict becomes generalized.

All that said, I definitely am excited to see some shit go down when the
G20 comes to Pittsburgh. It is important that anarchists continue to
respond to these types of summits, however, it is unfortunate that it
seems that so much more effort goes into combating this kind of shit and
not into becoming more involved in the rifts that already exist in our
areas, the conflicts that people constantly engage in against the system,
and the issues that people are ready to rampage about.

Authored by: biofilo on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 12:11 AM UTC

Well said--allow me to amend my statement: "We DESIRE to be in a social conflict, not a military engagement."

I agree with much of your criticism of how summits can be contained as a private grudge match between the police and the politicized, though I also think they can offer different worthwhile opportunities than unexpected riots do: more opportunities in the realm of infrastructure, alliances, and visibility than forceful confrontation, perhaps. All those are important.

Also, if I weren't busy already doing a great deal where I live, I wouldn't be interested in these things. But in some cases, nationwide mobilizations can help people who have reached a plateau locally to push things a little further.

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 10:58 AM UTC

I really doubt we'll be able to 'shut down' the summit, and even if we did, what long-term strategic benefit do we gain? Nothing that I think is particularly valuable, though it would be a very enjoyable spectacle.

It has been pointed out in these comments, however, that there is great strategic value to be gained in expanding our logistical capacity. We really ought to be rehearsing the rapid deployment of medical/food/communications etc. structures, not just to be better at pulling off big summit protests (in fact I'd say these are MOST useful for 'drills') but also for natural disaster preparedness. Or how about a right-wing putsch.

Think about it this way: What is the message that we're trying to send here? Shouldn't we be trying to show that we (either 'we the anarchists' or 'we the people'), rather than the G20, can find our own way out of this 'crisis?'

In other words, let's use this opportunity to practice skills that actually matter, and let/goad the communist front groups that are already lining up for lame, ineffectual protests deal with all the infiltrators, prosecution, repression, grand jury bullshit etc. Two birds, one stone.

Authored by: nolalove on Friday, June 12 2009 @ 05:01 PM UTC

My point exactly Jay Pee. It was the Rainbow's who brought hot food to the gulf coast, it was street medics who brought the first public clinics, and it was pirates who set up the first radio that wasn't the government/ clear channel station that was on almost every band when you went looking for news.
Most of these folks who had set up this post disaster infrastructure learned how to do these things from setting up kitchens, clinics, and media at Gatherings, Conventions distance marches and environmental campaigns.
We need not think that this G20 or any other one for that matter will be where we see the proverbial spark. What we have is a relatively "safe" situation to practice, forge alliances and train new allies. That said any big demo like this is bound to be heavily infiltrated and survailed and accordingly any over the top militancy being planned should be evaluated in advance as to the reasoning for the act will it aid the disruption of the meetings? Or are you being set up like Brandon "the snitch" Darby did to the texas 2. We need to be mindful of our angry youngsters who may romanticize bomb throwing in a super public and watch situation as opposed to more discreet actions that may have a much more powerful propaganda effect than misconstrued overly macho ideas of "keepin it real"
We should attend but we should remember that the social upheaval will come from below and those of us who manage by hook or by crook to summit hop are more often than not in a situation where we can show solidarity with a community in struggle but we ourselves are not that community. I can be a white ally to APOC for example but by being white I will never be APOC ya dig?

Authored by: DropScience on Saturday, June 13 2009 @ 12:14 AM UTC

what the hell?

whats does "keeping it real" mean? and how is it macho?

i think that the goal of any of this needs to be to disrupt, destroy or halt capital. it is very obvious that you want shut down the summit, but we need to be able to strategize in a way where shutting a summit down isn't the most effective action.

ive suggested before that marches and action should be organized for before and after the summit is in town.

this is when the police will be most strained and most ill prepared.

this is just an idea though.

also nostalgia nailed it "It is important that anarchists continue to
respond to these types of summits, however, it is unfortunate that it
seems that so much more effort goes into combating this kind of shit and
not into becoming more involved in the rifts that already exist in our
areas, the conflicts that people constantly engage in against the system,
and the issues that people are ready to rampage about."

Authored by: laozi on Sunday, June 14 2009 @ 01:19 PM UTC

yeah, i'm all for this counter-summit, but why do counter-summits have to be our only social networking events? can't we learn about medicine elsewhere, can't we learn about community disaster preparation at home where we could make use of it, same goes for pirate radio and radgeek stuff might it be better to learn that not under a stressful situation where your friends are getting beat up by cops?

Main Menu

Submit Articles and Events

Follow Infoshop on ...

User Functions

Recent I-News Features

Infoshop Hot Links

Events

Independent Media

Blogroll

Poll

Other Infoshop News

Older Stories

Wednesday 28-Jul

Tuesday 27-Jul

Pittsburgh: POG Statement on G20 Resistance

What's Related

Story Options

Trackback