Desert Storm - shape shifing and organising@woomera2002

Shape Shifting

Andrew

Recent years have seen a significant growth in Australia of political organising that emphasises self-activity, decentralisation, autonomy and networks as key methods of working together. Many may mark the s11 protests against the World Economic Forum in 2000 as being a key catalyst in expanding this type of extra-parliamentary politics. Indeed the rising movements against capitalist globalisation around the world have been a key source of energy and inspiration. Several forms, from reclaim the streets, social centres, radical media making, anarchist and autonomist groups, forest and desert direct action and much more make up this tendency. Most recently the Woomera2002 actions were developed around the ideas of autonomy, self-activity and direct action and provide a practical example to explore the limitations and possibilities of a broader area of struggle composed around similar themes.

Methods of Organising
As this essay is an attempt at both introducing and critiquing the forms of organising used at Woomera I will briefly lay out the ways in which I feel they have operated. The methods of organising are however inherently multifarious, there is no single model or correct line and as such no one to speak as the voice. The opinions thus are solely mine.

The methods of organising deny the mediation of representatives and instead emphasise direct democracy and direct action. Direct action is taken not as a last-ditch measure or as a form of militant lobbying, but as an ethic in itself, the preferred method of acting within the social terrain. Implicit in this is the rejection of the colonisation of everyday life by both the state and capital, and an endeavour to carve out some degree of autonomy in which to practice revolutionary new social relations, spaces from which to posit a radical reconstruction of society. One of the key markers of this tendency is its rejection of state structures as a means to social change. "Autonomous social movements aim to transcend the state, not capture it."*

Decision-making occurs mostly through regular meetings of groups of individuals and spokescouncils and networks based on working groups, organisations and affinity groups. Decisions are often made by consensus, but not always. Ideas of networks and diversity are emphasised over some type of homogenous unity.

An affinity group is a collective of people who work together to establish a level of trust between themselves. They are a radical support group who form the key nuclei of decision making and activity. They are most often made up of friends.

A working group is made up of individuals, some from groups, some not, that come together to establish key needs of a broader network such a publicity, transport, infrastructure, skill sharing.

A spokescouncil is a method of organisation by which each working group, organisation or affinity group sends a delegate or 'spoke' through which they participate in decision making and coordinate with other groups. As a structure they were popularised by the anarchists during the Spanish Civil War and again as part of the peace, feminist and anti-nuclear movements. Sometimes only spokes attend meetings, other times the affinity or working group will sit behind the spoke and discuss and decide on proposals.

This is seen as a more egalitarian and cooperative structure than typical mass meetings and was the method employed at the Woomera2002 protests. It encourages greater self-activity, participation and ownership of struggles than mass meetings where only the loudest and most confidant usually speak and others are often relegated to a position of spectatorship. Spokescouncils are a more sophisticated decision-making structure and demand much more of participants in terms of self-organisation and initiative. The difference in structures could be seen as a network, web, or rhizome versus a hierarchical and static pyramid.

Evaluating Woomera
In many ways Woomera proved the practical potential of these methods of organising and should be celebrated for its success. There were, however, many failures in how the protests were organised, or not organised, which are worth evaluating. But first, the positives.

The call to autonomy, self-organisation and self-initiative created a space where people were immediately trusted to bring their ideas and actions into a cooperative space. There was not one central structure that would approve the validity of people's ideas but an environment that would foster different approaches. The lack of centralised leadership meant that instead of taking orders the possibilities were laid out for people's imaginations. This, combined with a lack of overt authoritarianism, despite attempts by some groups like Socialist Alternative, created a greater sense of ownership and spontaneity in the protests and increased the possibilities for the fences to come down.

When the fences were being dismantled there were no megaphones, there were no directors because there were no actors to direct. People refused to be bodies to be shouted at and shunted. They chose instead to "immediately (at once) & immediately (without mediation)"** become agents: self-organised and autonomous. Whilst some continued to run around and shout at people, their authority was ignored. People plainly and simply just got on with the job. The fences coming down and broken apart was one of those magic moments where hierarchies were dissolved, carnival and freedom ensued.

The most decisive factor was of course the commitment of those inside, who spured those outside to commit themselves, and provide practical and direct solidarity to their ongoing struggle. The spontaneous self-organisation that occurred between the two groups of people was truly inspiring.

Despite the difficulty of trying to establish an effective decision-making structure due to the chaos of Friday night many people did manage to organise themselves. The spokescouncils eventually proved their effectiveness, but unfortunately not until Sunday. The nature of smuggling people out of the camp, however, demanded people work in a decentralised and self-organised capacity.

Another limitation is that these structures, though not new, are not established enough to be consistently effective. Many people are not used to having to organise themselves. The methods of decision-making, even in so-called radical circles, are not very different to the way the establishment organises itself, through directors and spectators. We are brought up taking orders from parents, teachers, cops, CEOs and governments; it will take a bit of practice to begin to unlearn that.

One key criticism that needs addressing is the lack of preparation with regard to the escapes. Beyond anything else this seems to me to be more a problem of self-confidence, of actually believing we can achieve social change, than any particular organisational dysfunction. With a far greater belief in, and enaction of, our abilities who knows what would have been possible? The fact that the break-out was largely spontaneous means that Woomera2002 will not happen again. You cannot plan for spontaneity and as such it should not be fetishized. Similarly all the tactics used should be seen as merely that. Spokescouncils and affinity groups are not the correct organising method for every situation but should be applied as the terrain demands.

Individualism versus Collectivism - Taking Autonomy Too Far
For many the practice of autonomy centres on the individual or very small groups. There is a tendency to take the idea of a diverse network of collectives down to a microcosmic level. In the case of the Melbourne Woomera network meetings, 30 people in a room, the vast majority of whom are there only as individuals and not from any particular group, were told they are not a collective but rather an amorphous network of random individuals.

This kind of hyper-autonomy often mirrors much of life under late capitalist society. The atomisation experienced in everyday life also occurs within some of the organising. The idea of a broader collective identity, of a 'we', is shunned as impinging on the freedom of individuals and tiny groups. If we have common ground we should use it. Many people come to activism through a rejection of the loneliness, alienation and isolation of everyday life under capitalism. They are attracted to activism because of the relationships they hope to form and the possibility of finding meaning through the construction of a collective identity in struggling against injustice. If we are to deny this collectivity we lose one of the strongest attractions of activism and more importantly we lose the power of collective action.

"Autonomy" is often interpreted as being "separate from". There is a tendency though to take this to extremes to the point of self-marginalisation and atomisation. Autonomy doesn't mean being autonomous from each other, it means self-organising, self-
management, self-activity. Autonomy is different from independence. Autonomy indicates a level of inter-dependence.

This is not to say that the method of decentralised networks is not a valid project to work towards. It absolutely is. The problem is that the networks are at such a microscopic level that they end up becoming merely an amorphous collection of individuals and tiny groups that are hard to break into, rather than a much larger and much more effective web. We need to imagine these networks beyond groupsicles and individuals, we need to imagine it on a mass scale if is truly to be a potent force for social change.

The examples of Italian Autonomia, European squatted social centres and the Zapatistas, though not without their own problems, prove that ideas of autonomy are applicable on a scale involving hundreds of thousands of people. Imagining and organising ourselves beyond our marginal scene cannot happen if we remain atomised and isolated individuals. Linking up with the vast majority of people, in work place or community everyday sites of struggle, is essential if autonomy is to be more than a marginalised subculture and the latest activist buzzword.

Reactionism
It is only natural that many react negatively to the idea of structure in an already over-structured world. It is, however, necessary to go beyond this and envision empowering methods of organising that facilitate direct democracy. There is a degree of reactionism against traditional leftist parties and a heavy and almost paranoid consciousness in the attempts to differentiate from them. Some of this is justified given the track record of such groups in attempting to take over otherwise functioning collectives. The amorphousness is an attempt to make that harder, to allow as little structure as possible to develop to prevent it being taken over. You can not build a solid politics, however, in such a reactionary state of mind, always fearful that other groups are going to take it over. It makes it very hard for new people to find something to get into and so the most visible and accessable groups end up being of the authoritarian socialist variety.

In fact with the network dissolving after the protest authoritarian socialist groups did take over. Although 'take over' would be the wrong word. Basically the ball was dropped and the responsibility of ongoing solidarity, particularly for those facing jail terms and still inside, was taken up by the Refugee Action Collective. This seems ludicrous as many people now had much energy to put into organising. As soon as this occurred the network dissolved and then people complain about 'Trots taking over'.

The Tyranny of Structurelessness

"There are no leaders or organisers, no hierarchy."

- 'Autonomous John Farnham fan club'
affinity group's flyer for Woomera2002.

Hyper-autonomy gives rise easily to cliques of friends, which diminishes the decision-making power of those outside them. This was evidenced in the Woomera organising with much of the decisions happening behind the scenes through mobile phone conversations or in informal meetings. People who are friends form affinity groups (as is supposed to happen) and become 'autonomous', which means those without the skills often get left behind as it becomes hard to break into the structures. There is a certain degree of Darwinism where the most skilled and well-resourced prosper. A lack of formal structure accentuates this.

For example, people were encouraged to autonomously produce their own propaganda or to speak to the media so as to avoid having a single representation, for people to represent themselves. Whilst I agree that this is the preferred method it ignores the reality that everyone can't go and produce their own flyer, or has the time or money. Similarly, not everyone has the skills to speak to the media. Such people often end up getting represented by default, with no say whatsoever. As such, groups like the Socialist Party and No One Is Illegal quite often ended up representing the protest as a whole. The point is not to dismiss collective representation as such but to ensure that they are transparent and democratically accountable and that the representation that does occur emphasises the multiplicity of participation. That doesn't mean that people can't produce their own material, they should be encouraged to do so, but that those without the means don't get represented by default. These are hierarchies that need to be dealt with rather than pretending we suddenly have equal access to power because we are all 'autonomous'.

"Autonomy" often gets used to mean "unaccountability", like "I can do whatever I want cause I'm autonomous". This was evidenced at Woomera where the spokescouncils often had no meaning, as there was little commitment to carrying out collective decisions. This is not to suggest that we should all lump ourselves together, that we should deny spontaneity and diversity but that we should be building a more communalistic culture. There is nothing wrong in my mind with the development of structures that create some common ground, or hallmarks. The emphasis on autonomy and 'respect for diversity of tactics' were general decisions that applied across the protest, so why not others? Collective decisions are not inherently bad, some degree of commonality needs to be established.

More structure in this instance, rather than being the tyranny some rail against, can actually facilitate communication between groups, thus enhancing participation, accountability and democracy. More structure might also provide ways for new people to get involved who find it difficult to see a way into these amorphous collaborations of individuals.

Calls for some kind of correct line, as touted by authoritarian leftist parties, are obviously to be rejected. The problem is to find a complementary balance between commonality and pluralism, a kind of decentred coherence. How can we envision "a world with space for many worlds" that is liberatory and revolutionary? The spokescouncil structure provides one practical model. The establishment of broader networks with a more defined politics is another.

Open/Close
Woomera2002 proved the possibilities of a networked, anti-authoritarian and direct action approach to social change. 50 detainees escaped and eleven remain free. The physical destruction of the steel palisades and razor wire that divide us, and the daily incursions against governments, capital, and their borders by the autonomous movement of people on a global scale, are an assault against the state as the arbiter of who enters the national fortress. Rather than being the 'anti-globalisation' xenophobes as parodied in the media, the actions showed up the fraud of 'globalisation', where capital and corporations can move but people can't. Here at Woomera were the real globalisers: those who wish to globalise humanity.

The protests, both inside and outside the razor wire, inspired many as to the possibilities for different shapes and methods of refusal. Discussion of both the successes and failures of the protest, and the growth of anti-authoritarian and autonomous movements of resistance, are essential if we are to escape the dead weight of history.

* Katsiafics, G., The Subversion of Politics, Humanity Books, 2001.

** Bey, H., Immediatism, AK Press, 1994.