Authored by: Admin on Tuesday, July 29 2008 @ 02:43 AM CDT

Again, we already have existing networks and quite a few organizations and projects. It would make more sense for people to plug into existing projects instead of pouring energy into some nebulous call to organize a network. Infoshop already runs an informal international network. We are always looking for volunteers to work on our projects. The same can be said about similar projects.

As for strategy after the convention protests, this proposal doesn't meet my minimal standards for a strategy proposal to be taken seriously. The next few years will be very favorable for anarchists, as we'll be the only independent political movement which can expose the false hope that is being put into the upcoming Obama administration. The authoritarian Left in this country is pretty much dead, so there is even more room for us. This proposal gets one thing right about summit mobilizations--that organizers will be too burned out to follow-up politically and organizationally. This is one thing that some of us learned in the post-Seattle summit convergences. We did some good work with those summit protests, but we weren't able to emotionally, physically, and mentally follow-up afterwards. This might be something that anarchists who aren't going to the conventions can do, but the follow-up should focus on reaching non-anarchists, not re-hashing tired sectarian battles between anarchists.

Chuck

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: notverycreative on Tuesday, July 29 2008 @ 04:38 AM CDT

I think you have a misunderstanding about what we are calling for. Yes, we recognize that there are many informal networks in existence. What we have a problem with is how separate they seem to be and how a lot of the work that goes into building stronger networks (as we've seen towards the conventions) falls apart once the main event is over. We are not talking about forming a new network, we're talking about keeping the network that is already there (via UA, Bash Back, etc) and expanding it to tackle other areas once the conventions have ended. I think that maintaining this already existing network and keep it moving towards new projects will address a number of your concerns.

For one, I think having a larger network will encourage people to stick with their projects. Its easy to get burned out, etc when you feel like you and your 10 friends are the only people doing shit. If you know that there are hundreds of other folks working on the same shit all across the country and planning to act in solidarity with you for whatever event well, I think that is a major motivation. As for burn-outs in the post convention months, again, we think this offers a nice solution in that the task of keeping momentum will be distributed among a large group of people, instead of just a small group in the city where the "big event" is taking place. There won't be a "big event" as such, or at least it will have shifted locales, so the tired organizers get a break and the rest of us get a crack at getting shit together.

We've got folks who've been involved for some time and seen how the "networking-summit-things fall apart" cycle goes, and this proposal is our modest attempt at trying to rectify that. We have some strong and awesome networks right now that have been organized for the conventions- why let them fall apart again? I think by having a concrete plan for the immediate post-convention months, we can keep them together and start getting our shit together. As you say, the coming months and years are important for anarchists and I think if we let a strong network as exists now dissolve, we're doing ourselves a big disservice.

[ Reply to This | # ]