The Year of the Comeback, a Report from the DC IMF-WB Protests

October Rebellion bodes well for the future of the global justice, anti-capitalist and anarchist movements in the streets.

This report is written for Infoshop.org by a participant in the Friday Black Bloc and the Saturday anarchist contingent. People experienced the protests in varied ways; this is intended as a contribution to the post-protest discussion rather than any type of definitive account. –Chris Knight

On Friday, October 19, 300-400 protesters, most wearing black clothes and masks, many with padding, shields, helmets, etc., marched through Georgetown, DC in a militant, confrontational protest designed to disrupt the area as part of a weekend of resistance to the fall meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB). The next day an energetic rally and march of 800 brought protesters to the gates of the meetings where some confronted delegates.

The weekend of events, organized by the October Rebellion coalition, were a success for our movements and represent a significant tactical and strategic departure from the last four years of summit organizing in DC. In some ways it was a return to the organizational and tactical model/principles that made the 1999-2001 period of convergence protests so dynamic and effective.

The Organizing Framework

The Framework:

The umbrella coalition, October Rebellion, was organized into various working groups responsible for different facets of the mobilizing. These included action, fundraising, legal, logistics, materials, medic and outreach. A central website (www.octoberrebellion.org) acted as a clearinghouse for information.

There was space within the coalition-organized framework and within each of the particular events for a diversity of tactics and a multiplicity of strategies. Two of the main tactics organizers coalesced around were a permitted march and rally where participants would feel safe from state repression and an un-permitted event designed to militantly disrupt and target corporations in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city.

What Made it Different:

The coalition was homegrown, made up overwhelmingly by DC residents. This was not an action dominated by an out of town coalition or paid organizers from NGOs.

The decision-making was open and accountable with public meetings, contact information, and individuals who openly identified as event organizers.

The decentralized nature of the organizing - the general freedom of working groups to organize the framework for their own events - ensured that those unsupportive of a particular event’s goals/tactics weren’t able to try and undermine those goals, as is so often the case.

On the Ground:

Logistical work was solid, with a convergence center, ample housing, food and organizers available to answer questions.

Why it Built Momentum:

Planning for the protests began months before the meetings, which left plenty of time for outreach within the movement and laying the logistical groundwork.

A comprehensive call to action was written and sent out early.

A significant number of known groups endorsed the call lending credibility to the mobilization. Because of disappointment with the past couple years of IMF-WB protests in DC there was a level of skepticism around the Northeast that there would be a serious effort at direct action/militancy. Endorsement by recognized groups was critical in overcoming this and helped with pre-event build up by demonstrating to potential participants there was momentum behind the protests.

What Was lacking:

Compelling flyers and educational materials. Materials were late in coming out and the ones produced weren’t visually striking or engaging.

Timely dissemination of information to the movement during the protests. Many people were looking to DC as the actions unfolded. They were disappointed as the only website with coverage, DC Indymedia, was lacking in updates and information, and comments were overrun and dominated by right-wingers and trolls. Websites dedicated to being a free speech zone for all serve a much-needed purpose in society, but they are lacking as a tool for building social movements. There is a clear need during these types of actions for a regularly updated website produced by, and for, our movements where activists can dialogue.

The Georgetown March

The Georgetown action was organized by the action working group of October Rebellion, and supported heavily by some sectors of the radical and anarchist movement.

The Northeast Anarchist Network (NEAN), in particular, issued a call for an anarchist bloc and mobilized heavily. The result was that groups and individuals affiliated with the network comprised roughly 20 percent of its strength. Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), while deserving critique for some of its actions and decisions, also represented a significant portion of the march.

The coalition publicly stated the plan was to disrupt Georgetown with an “un-permitted, rowdy march…the coalition embraces a diversity of tactics. Please plan accordingly… This is the time to strike.” The logic behind choosing Georgetown as the site of the action was that the police are quite effective at bottling up resistance at the IMF-WB buildings where there is little foot or vehicular traffic and on the weekend the area resembles a ghost town. This means the police are free to create a well-guarded perimeter, expandable in proportion to the level of protester mobilization, without causing much disruption to government or corporate interests. For these reasons, and the resultant ease of police movement, publicly announced large-scale direct action at the site itself is difficult. Georgetown, on the other hand, is a site of wealth and privilege, where the well to do (and often IMF-WB delegates themselves) often gather. And, in Georgetown, effective police tactics result in major disruption of commercial interests.

The reaction of the corporate chains in Georgetown was consistent with the very real threat they faced. Dozens of corporate chain stores, cognizant of the fact they would be targeted for property destruction, wisely choose to board up their glass windows and doors and close for the evening. Parking was banned for large sections of the commercial core.

At 8:30 p.m. protesters began gathering at Franklin Park. Less than five minutes before the scheduled start of the demo, an individual identifying as part of the anarchist-feminist bloc approached random people asking if it was okay if the bloc walked “in front of, or behind” the march. Unknown to most non-SDS participants, this particular bloc had been called for at an SDS meeting the previous night. Members of this bloc also chose to engage the police in discussion before the protest began. Various third party accounts of what was said to the police surfaced. While differing on the exact language, all accounts stated that this bloc told the police they were a “non-violent” group and that they’d be marching separately. Nothing was announced to the crowd about this separate bloc and it chose to remain with the main group as the protest stepped off towards Georgetown.

The police response was to saturate the area with cops on every block. Overwhelming numbers shadowed the march and held key bridges. There were cops in riot gear, on bikes, motorcycles, in squad cars and on horseback. While some corporate media reported protesters were outnumbered 3:1, head counts indicated a 1:1 ratio was more realistic.

As the march entered Georgetown protesters pulled newspaper boxes into the streets and began throwing projectiles (ceramic tiles, bricks, whatever the hell was in those slingshots, etc.) at corporate windows. The front of the march was a solid wall of shields, and this area of the march encountered few problems. The sides and back, however, were regularly in conflict with motorcycle and bike police. In total, three protesters were arrested.

The scene in Georgetown itself was surreal. Hundreds of corporate store employees, Georgetown residents and those out for a “night on the town” watched the protest from the sidewalk seemingly oblivious to the risk of a riot waiting to happen. Massive traffic jams of cars and police stalled the area.

It was admirable that two march participants attempted to warn bystanders in front of some corporate stores that they were assuming a level of risk.

As the march continued a women who had come with friends to watch the police-protester confrontation was unintentionally struck in the face by a piece of brick thrown at the adjacent store’s unprotected glass windows.

Militant street protests are unpredictable and risky for everyone in their physical vicinity. Protesters are putting themselves at risk of arrest and/or injury, police are risking injury and/or lawsuits and bystanders are putting themselves at risk of unintentional or intentional risk from police or protesters.

This was not the first time a bystander who chose to stand and watch a militant protest was accidentally injured by protesters or police, and it will not be the last. The incident was, of course, regrettable and our movements should extend a heartfelt apology to the injured. Remarkably, assuming online messages from the women and her brother are genuine, she handled the episode with humor, grace and forgiveness. While, of course, not excited about being injured, she didn’t blame the person who threw the brick, recognized they were aiming for the window and is mad that the right wing has attempted to use the incident to discredit activists and detract from debate around the impact of IMF-WB policies.

The march continued and the anarchist feminist/ SDS bloc moved to the front and turned right while the majority of the march went left. This resulted in significant confusion, as most participants had no idea what the SDS bloc was and that it was committed to avoiding increased risk of arrest by deliberately trying to distance itself from the rest of the protest.

Shortly after the main group continued on, the march was pushed onto the sidewalk (partly pushed, partly people were trying to bypass heavy car traffic) by the police and surrounded by six officers in the front and unknown numbers at the back. The shield wall at the front wasn’t able to act as a cohesive unit, and the participants who wanted to push through weren’t confident in support from the rest of the march. Some affinity groups wanted to push through but couldn’t get to the front because of how tightly the protest was crushed together. Some scuffles occurred and escape became impossible due to heavy police numbers.

Eventually police announced that while protesters were not under arrest they were being dispersed and the police would let people go “one by one.” The “generous” offer was refused leading to an order to leave in groups of 10. Slowly, groups started to leave. Everyone was released with their gear and padding, although shields were confiscated.

While the march was trapped and before everyone was released, the separate SDS bloc passed by on the other side of the street. A member of the bloc who was asked about going over towards the arrests said they “didn’t want anything to do with that.”

I approached seven different SDS members on Saturday about what had happened the day before. None were able to give a detailed account of how the bloc came about, which parts of SDS participated in or organized it, or what was said to the police. All indicated that they either weren’t at the Friday actions, stayed with the main march or went with the anarchist-feminist bloc but did not approve of the communication or what had happened.

This “good protester/ bad protester” dynamic was evident even within corporate coverage of the march when Fox news reporters discussed how one group of protesters was more “well behaved” than the other.

I later saw the anarchist-feminist SDS bloc as it left Georgetown, chanting about stopping the war and World Bank, “Yes we can, SDS is back again” and one ironically about “no compromise.” The actions of the SDS bloc didn’t represent the organization as a whole and hopefully there will be a productive dialogue within the organization about what occurred.

Georgetown Was Different:

For the first time in many years dozens of groups came to a global justice convergence action in well-organized affinity groups prepared to engage in a black bloc utilizing property damage and prepared for confrontation with the state. Without the overwhelming police presence, and the pre-emptive shutdown of most stores, Georgetown’s corporate core would likely have been leveled.

Rather than run from this fact and pretend we’re a passive, innocent movement devoid of threat to the existing order, we should deal with the implications of our revolutionary goals. We are angry, our determination to resist this system and its institutions is real, and eventually the police won’t be properly prepared.

In some ways Georgetown 2007 resembled the Peoples Strike in 2002. The targets of the protests, government and corporate interests, choose to shut themselves down rather than give us the opportunity to do so. Despite large scale police mobilization protesters followed through on their plans in a deliberate and consistent way. What happens at events is a product of our actions and that of the opposition. We achieved our explicitly stated goal of disrupting Georgetown.

Georgetown Could Have Been So Much More:

It seemed everyone who was in the streets came away with the feeling that there was an unrealized potential to the actions. In large measure this seemed due to the relative inexperience of many participants. It was surprising how many people, and even entire affinity groups, stated it was their first militant action. Preparation and planning varied wildly between different groups. In a lot of ways it seemed many groups didn’t take seriously the potential of the actions or understand the degree to which other groups were gearing up. Because we’re so used to actions where little is possible, there is a psychological impediment, a fear, of our own power. The initial police trap could easily have been overrun. The police at the front were seriously outnumbered with only an offensive potential while facing an entire line of activists with shields and padding.

A Note on “Diversity of Tactics” (DOT)

The overall convergence, and some of the events within it, emphasized the need for a “diversity of tactics” (DOT). During and after the events I heard significant confusion about the concept from new activists. We must be clear that whether as a model for an overall convergence or a particular march, DOT isn’t a cover for “I can do what I want regardless of how it impacts others.” It is simply a recognition - and subsequent manifestation - that our movements are not homogenous and that we don’t always agree on protest strategy or the best tactics to use at all times. It’s therefore necessary to organize resistance to these gatherings of government and corporate elites in ways that allow participants to utilize the tactics they find effective with the least negative impact and disruption to the effectiveness of others’ actions. It doesn’t mean property destruction in a permitted space, nor abandoning people who are being arrested, nor sowing confusion during a black bloc.

DOT is a two-way street; it’s solidarity in action and for the most part (excepting the SDS issues) it worked with people respecting the tone and tactics of the framework. The Friday night event didn’t have peacekeepers, chants of “non-violence,” calls to “sit-down,” divisive fights over property damage or participants who were completely unprepared for confrontation. Saturday’s permitted mass march didn’t have property damage, escalations during the march that could have put others at risk, no one used the larger march as a cover for illegal actions, militants didn’t go to the front of the march or try to deviate it from it’s route, etc.

It’s often asked whether militant actions advertised as supportive of a diversity of tactics mean that “anything goes.” I’d argue they don’t, that participants maintain a moral code on what’s acceptable that has lines they’re uncomfortable with the protest crossing, and that therefore it would probably be useful for organizers of future militant events (Republican National Convention?) to come up with something to use as a guide. The often laughable (“Don’t raise your voice!”) and oppressive “guidelines” of some liberal events, and a degree of paranoia, have unfortunately seemingly turned radicals off to being more explicit about our intentions. While it isn’t usually explicitly stated, there seem to be generally accepted, implicit guidelines militants agree on even during actions involving property damage or defense against police repression; we don’t target the personal property of the working class or poor, we try to focus the impact of our protests on those we are targeting and minimize it on others, we don’t intentionally attack bystanders (even those opposed to our actions), and even when we resist those the elites have employed to repress us we don’t deliberately seek to injure them. No incidents were reported which fell outside of these bounds.

-Christ Knight

Some News Coverage of the Weekend Protest:

Pictures from Friday’s Georgetown action:
www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php

Coverage of Saturday Events:
Demonstration Downtown, Protesters March
www.wtopnews.com/index.php

Video of protesters confronting delegates on Saturday:
www.liveleak.com/view

Comments from the student struck by the brick (and her brother):
wecouldbefamous.blogspot.com/

Other Opinion Pieces/Write-ups on Georgetown:

Notes on the October Rebellion:
www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php

IMF/World Bank Protestors Bring the Fight to DC’s Richest Neighborhood:
www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php

Moving Forward with Rebellion:
www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php

DC: The October Rebellion:
www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php