Towards an inventive strategy for attacking and blocking summits
In the cycle of recent counter summit mobilisations we can see that each time we've won its because we invented some new tactics rather than reproducing a ritualised staged confrontation.
For example, in Seattle in 1999 the capitalists did not expect a large physical mobilisation of people trying to shut their meeting down. In Genoa in 2001 they expected the red zone to be the focus of action and yet we were elsewhere. During the G8 2003, the commercial centre of Geneva could be set on fire, blitzed without anyone being caught because we had the element of surprise. Since Genoa we have had few successes, mainly because we were pursuing another Genoa whilst the police organised to prevent that.
Thessaloniki, St Petersburg, Gleneagles and others were arguably failures in terms of sabotaging capital because they were repeats of similar centralised spectacles. However they were powerful events in terms of networking and building relationships between disparate people and groups in struggle.
But the question is who blocks who? If we organise a large mobilisation in one place then the strategy of the state/capital is clear. They also mobilise there. Through the nature of capital they always have greater resources than we do. The conditions of political struggle have also changed; in many situations night time sabotage has become safer than open demonstration on the streets. Terrorism is the new spectacle of capital, the currency of fear is their means to legislate against, divide and imprison us. We make their work easier if we allow them to label us by our mobilisation in one place.
Today effective struggle against capital means blocking the economy. The insurgents in Algeria, the piqueteros in Argentina, the anti CPE movement in France have in common this focus: attack on circulation of capital by all means.
Therefore we would argue that by blocking the economy through attacking infrastructure and the flow of capital across the world we open the doors to an insurrection.
There have been many criticisms of counter summits, notably the idea that they are purely about spectacle. This ignores the vast power that new encounters and networking hold for inspiring new struggle.
We believe that the power of convergence should not be lost but focused instead on conspiracy, sharing experiences, and skills. Literally speaking, this means that we would dissociate convergence with actions because it is harder to share ideas under the repression that follows acts of sabotage. Hitting where it hurts is easier when they are not watching you.
There is a value in meeting and sharing ideas prior to and after an event. This should be a focus of centralised organisation as it has a value in its own right. We need opportunities to strategise. We are committed to transnational acts of sabotage but we need to learn ways of theoretically discussing them as the police are in all our meetings.
Therefore we propose, that in Germany in 2007 the convergences are for planning and strategising for transnational counter summit actions and analysis of their outcomes.
The target should not be Heiligendamm but the global economy.
Meaning that, there are large international gatherings before and after direct actions against the G8 summit that allow us the space to conspire and be inspired together without providing the excuse for massive repression. We call for actions to take place on the three days of the summit (6th-8th June 2007) across the world with the aim of paralysing the global economy.
We call for these ideas to be discussed in every context of international preparation for the summit
This proposal is not explicitly against mass actions, just against one mass action in one place against G8. Symbolic actions are not useless but capital is not at war in a symbolic way.
Our limitations are the bounds of our imagination.
The 22nd october collective