|
I have a bit of an angry
rant here, but I aso want to offer some opinion and analysis that migth
be helpful if people actually feel like thinking carefully about this
subject.
You know, I am a bit
uncomfortable with people conflating anarchists (which I am) with
animal rights activists (which I am not), and using the term "animal
rights activists" as a catch-all term that includes people who actually
do destructive stuff that violates federal law. Do we even get to
debate this, like, how much we "are" the same as these people? I mean
is there any democratic or consensual process or discussion
allowed? Can an anarchist "opt out", or are we all supposed to
support/go along with this stuff amost blindly?
If I'm going to go to
jail, it isn't going to be for rescuing some lab animal or attacking
some animal testing facility clandestinely. I'm more concerned
about human beings not taking ther own destiny and control of their own
lives and communities into their own hands, and I work toward that. I'd
trather be arrested for taking action against fascists, christian
fundamentalists, of various corporate authoritarians when they are
_activly trying to kill people or enslave them_. (Which is a slow
process in America but considerably faster in the 3rd World.)
People might tell me "oh
how heartless you are for not caring about the poor animals", but what
happens when *I* am _homeless_, with no medication, and I
need a place to stay? My experiance is that "activists" will leave
people like me to rot. I have no sympathy for people like that. (I
spent over a month homless in San Francisco in early 2004)
You are scum. You SUCK. You only think about emotional issues that are
abstract with respect to humans, but when it comes to real people, it
seems that you hate human beings... that PEOPLE are a "bother", and
obsticle. That "people suck". Well I _disagree_.
We have Area 4 here in
Cambridge, North Cambridge, in Boston there is Roxbury and Dorchester -
not to mention many more (wite and nonwhite) poor and working class
communities in and surrounding Boston. People there are poor and kept
ignorant and unhealthy and manipulated by corporations and the
government that serves the corporations. They need qality basic
education. They need alternative news media that really speaks to and
for them. They need social bonds. They need to see the lessons of
history and they need to know what to do in a country with a federal
government that doesnt care about them at all. I'm more concerned about
that kind of stuff. I'd rather agetate politically to work to spread
libertarian socialist ideas in those communities, and elsewhere.
I don't really know
what to say to the animal rights people, besides that I resent the idea
of being pulled down with them when they are in this kind of trouble
(with the feds), because that isn't my fight, as an anarchist. It's not
MY fight. I do not agree with their behavior, attitude, or tactics.
(I'll go into this in more depth below).
I'd like to know why it is
that we're supposed to panic when we hear about the FBI going after
these people- do we really expect the feds to do nothing reponse
to the ALF and ELF? (Saying this does not mean I support the feds,
I'm just talking common sense here. The feds are going to do their
jobs.)
If you want to know where
this stuff really stands, then go out in some public place and poll
ordinary Americans about the kind of tactics the ALF and ELF use. You
can tell them what the labs do, too... use all the gorey details - but
also show reports and proof of the ELF and ALF actions and the results.
The fact is, if ordinary people don't like it after they have a chance
to fully understand and comprehend it, and there isn't much you can do
to change that (and yelling and screaming at them will make it worse,
trust me), then you are in the wrong. You don't have popular support,
yet you say "fuck the people, fuck public opinion, im going to go and
do this anyway, because my ideals are better than theirs, I know better
than those people". That is CRAZY ASS SHIT.
When racism was being
fought aggresivly in the past, you had a far more participatory process
with the public, because the fact was, when the pubic was exposed to
testemonials of the effects of racism, the public tended to shift
toward an anti-racist position. It was the corporate media and
political leaders and racist institutions which resisted (and some
sections of the ordinary population, of course). In cases where the
effects of racism and poverty stemming from it were obvious to
everyone, the situation came to a point where the goverment and
corporations had NO CHOICE but to change and impliment new laws.. law
which they can't destroy directly but have to instead chip away over
decades, with the help of cultural and psychological tactics like the
"PC conspiracy" mythology.
In the case of fighting
for animal rights, since the animal rights people have to speak for the
animals instead of the animals themselves, it gets problematic. If a
lot of the propaganda is old, and reused stuff, it becomes less
effective, or even silly. PETA and the ALF also have alot of activists
who act like anti-abortion people: they talk in that loud, panicked,
rushed voice that suggests they are on a different psychological and
emotional track than the rest of us (and most importantly they do not
care about our opinion or input when they talk to us on the street:
they have made up their minds, it is our job to be "convinced" or
converted). It's hard to sympathize with them. We do know, however,
that the public responds strongly to accurate, timely information about
real animal abuse (which we know the labs and meat processing
industry are keeping hidden from cameras), and does not tolerate
it from the government or corporations (though meat eating is a far
larger issue than animal testing and many Americans will not give it up
in spite of knowing how the animals they eat are slaughtered - though
it is likely that the public would not tolerate how the animals in
factory farms are treated, this is a very broad and extensive
propaganda project that will take a lot of time and resources and
persistance - burning shit down wont help _at all_).
I believe that the
ALF and ELF are going about what they do all wrong... instead of trying
to expose what is going on and present proof to the public, they
instead have done destructive actions that break federal law, and then
they self-rightiously expect the public (or completely different kinds
of activists) to support them, when the public - if honestly informed
would very likely not. It doesnt work that way (to ignore the public,
to not even make attempts to engage them). I'd like to see accurate
figures of the public's response to the ALF or ELF actions, and if it
changes over time, or if seeing a building on the news burning down
fills ordinary people with any kind of feeling that they need to
support ALF/ELF, or they need to care more than usual for animals. I
very much doubt it does, and that year after year the property
destruction tactic does not help the animal rights cause - as some
kinda of non-physically-destructive media-based exposure tactic *would*
help - actions which even if clandestine would only violate lesser
laws (trespassing, breaking-and-entering) and would not give the "mad
bomber" stigma to the activists. And don't you tell me that the more
violent or flame-enshrouded an action is the "better" or more "bad ass"
or "effective" it is. That is nonsense.
So I'm saying here that I
disagree with the "animal rights activists" (to use the sweeping term),
because I think the tactics and attitude of the ALF, ELF and even PETA
tend to suck, and I do not think there is enough if an appreciation for
the principles of liberty, solidarity, and equality, when it comes to
their mindset. To say my non-support says I dont care about solidarity,
too, would be wrong, because my solidarity with anyone is based on my
ability to freely choose if I agreee with something after hearing all
sides of the issue. If that does not exist and there is only their
emotion and rage (over abstract, detached concepts) to convince me,
then I say no, I don't support it, and I don't feel any association or
share any "collective guilt" with such people.
I would like to add, too,
that I think the disregard for other people's opinions - especially the
"person on the street" is part of a larger trend that has affected some
of the radical scene in the past few decades (especially the "anti-civ"
or "insurrectionary" types) - the anti-democracy position,
anti-concensus position (as much as people may use the term concensus
in positive ways, it's clear that some people do not even care for it
as well - they do not grasp that other opinions than their own can
exist or hav legitimacy and that they have to work hard to convince
people with good arguments, proof and examples), or the "anti
majoritarian" position, in which freedom and liberty is seen not
as an aspect of human nature we all desire and want to share in a
social context ... but individual freedom is a central part of
democracy and concensus- this fact was obscured by the polarizing
effects of the Cold War, in which both sides (the Authoritarian Left
and the Capitalist Right) tried to
convince us that "the social" and "the individual" were seperate worlds
or opposing forces: it was the greatest scam and bamboozlement of
ordinary people of the 20th Century. Freedom and Liberty in America
has been translated into a more narrow concept than what was
in the minds of the people before the Cold War: merely an excuse to do
whatever the fuck one wants and not care about what other people around
you think or how they are affected. You see this attitude expressed on
TV all the time.. in sit-coms, in cartoons, in the news, in novels...
and I fear it has affected activists as well. Hate people. Hate other
opinions. Disregard trying to come to agreement, trying to convince
people with honesty and hard work. When I think of the ALF and ELF I
feel similarly to the way I see the moslem fundamentalists in the
middle east - they made up their minds about what they want and they
wont accept any disagreement or variation.
-J
|
