3 considerations for any political action:
1. If your action couldn't possibly have negative consequences for you, it is of no consequence
2. If your action requires media attention to have any impact, it has no impact.
3. Working in the realm of ideas and symbols is not worthless, but working exclusively at that level is.
when we blocked off the ICE HQ as an action and got arrested, it did have potential risk to us; but we were only symbolically blocking the building. There were back entrances that were still open and nobody was even in the building that day because of renovations. We even made a path behind us so people could get through. We still got arrested but the renovations and ICE operations were not impeded. It relied entirely on media attention and it failed to get our demand (a stay of removal for someone)
It depended on the Image of the HQ being blocked off but did not do anything. The media cycle paid attention to the action for a single day and moved on. It was of no consequence, had no impact, and ultimately like I had the experience of going to jail as a learning experience i guess but it didnt... do anything of importance
Compare and contrast to the recent action in PDX where they surrounded the ICE HQ completely and blocked off the only garage exit and would *not* allow cars to exit the building; completely impeding operations, risking arrest, and forcing the facility to shut down.
1. They absolutely risked negative consequences
2. This would have worked regardless of if the media paid attention
3. They materially shut down the facility. It was not exclusively about attention, ideas, or symbols; though they did employ it
The Occupy movement likewise struggled due to this:
1. They did risk negative consequences
2. When the media distorted and ignored their demands, it broke any effectiveness they could have
3. All they really did was symbolically live in parks. They didn't actually shut down the wall street firms by occupying their buildings. It was a symbolic gesture exclusively as besides Being Kinda Noisy they didn't impede anything.
I remember in the 2009 when there was the National Equality March on Washington D.C. calling for gay marriage and equal protections for LGBT people in America. 200,000 people attended and the media... completely ignored it. Not a peep. You wouldn't even know it happened.
1. It was a legally ordained and risk-free action. People standing at a park and listening to speakers
2. It required media attention to have an impact
3. It was a Symbol of people being pro-gay rights; it did nothing to force hands
Remember, the revolution will not be televised and the corporate media is not your friend. They will never frame your actions how you want them to and will only cover what is safe.
For any action you must consider what it does if nobody knows you did it. Employing symbols and ideas in your action can make it more effective, but ultimately it must have a material component. and if you face no possible risk, then your action probably isn't threatening enough to the status quo.
if they'd never try to punish you for your action it's because they don't find it threatening
also you don't have to be doing "shut it down" actions for this to apply
If the media doesn't cover your community garden project, it still has impact so long as it is feeding people and fostering food autonomy; and the risk to yourself is being punished for zoning violations or whatever not allowing urban agriculture.
@shel I have to respectfully disagree, in part, regarding "media involvement = no impact".
There are times and places where media coverage *does* raise awareness of an issue; that, IMO, is impact.
Yes, mainstream media is very prone to distortion. But take the Mni Wiconi actions: distorted or not, the media coverage of those brave folk shone a nearly unprecedented spotlight on American Indian rights.
People can't take action on things they've never heard of ∑;3
@qwyrdo You've misunderstood the thread
If your action *depends* on media attention *to have any impact*
having media attention is good but you *must* consider what impact you would have *without* the media present.
@shel Ah, thanks for clarifying! This, I wholly agree with.
@shel this is an excellent thread. thank you! 💓
As for giving money to organizations:
1. If you give enough money that it srsly affects your budget, that does carry risk tru
2. Regardless of if anyone knows you gave the money, that org now has money
3. While giving money does symbolically show support; money also translates to resources.
That Said:
Money is valuable
Volunteers and accomplices are invaluable.
Staving off burnout by spreading the work or providing things like water and shelter are so so so important. accomplices keep work alive
[also ofc donating to an NGO like the ACLU has much less impact than donating to your local local organizations
@shel i went to occupy ice pdx on wednesday and i was thinking many of these same things! the tactics i saw reminded me of occupy but tighter and more practiced. every day they stick around is a tangible victory ✊️
it certainly helps that the mayor told the cops not to get involved 😅
@shel DC media were contacted well in advance. They refused to cover it.
and so... yeah nothing rly came of it. Their demands were eventually won but... way way later. there was no response to the march itself.