The analysis below is excerpted from Scenes from the Atlanta Forest (also available here). Hyperlinks have been added to provide some context; beyond these, it has not been edited from the versions linked above.
Just a Thought
I preface the following by first stating that the title of this denotes exactly how I would like the reader to perceive this writing. I do not want to come off as that person on the sidelines who acts as if they know all the secrets to the game. On the contrary I salute those, all those on the frontlines of this and other struggles, and simply have some thoughts that I would like share with others whom, like myself, share the revolutionary spirit.
These thoughts were brought on by the solicitation from a comrade of my comments on the struggle against Cop City. This solicitation was made on the account that I am a person who had the majority of their life policed to the ultimate degree, in one jail and prison after another. Further, though I am relatively young, the rest of my life is set to be spent in the enemy’s concentration camps. They wanted to know what I think about the expansion of militarized policing and the police state. My thoughts are as follows…
My thoughts here won’t encompass the Cop City project itself. That has been done and said by various other people more qualified and informed than myself. Instead my thoughts are on the militant movement against Cop City and the police state. As one campaign, or one issue arises, fizzles out, and another arises, then fizzles out, and we observe this causing burn-out among various sectors of people within the movement and in the passive material support from non-movement people, it is my thought that a more focused and concerted effort needs to be made to intensify the line of demarcation between the militant (pro-armed struggle/armed self-defense) wing(s) of the movement and the peaceful, respectability politics proponents.
Efforts must be made to be sure the broadest array of people are able to see, hear, and differentiate between these two wings of the North American ‘left.’ This effort can take root by way of the organizing of local, then regional and eventually national peoples’ assemblies. These assemblies will not only solicit the attendance of the average community member, but also the activist of various stripes. Herein at these assemblies, militants should propagate the necessity of armed struggle. Utilize recent struggles, highlight their failures and how things could’ve been better with active armed struggle.
People are usually turned off by idealistic notions of armed struggle. Therefore, when we discuss this topic we should seek to elucidate a generalized strategic overview. The purpose of these assemblies would be to gauge the loyalties of the communities, for or against armed struggle, the activists as well, and to take the first steps in organizing an armed clandestine network that will act in the interests of the liberation movement(s).
A generalized strategy that can be adopted and acted upon by the widest range of adherents: There first basic understanding of the proposed network must be the necessity of armed struggle. The second is that this armed struggle will be a protracted one. The third understanding is the current tactical objectives of the network: (1) Build the infrastructure necessary to support the armed struggle…safe houses, identification, traveling provisions, caches, makeshift ‘hospitals’ set up for surgeries, and this of this sort; (2) Establish a defensive-offensive military strategy and a firm grasp of what this entails; (3) Provide a generalized idea of prime targets; (4) Each decentralized cell shall establish organizational principles, codes of conduct, and chains of command. The latter is an operational principle, meaning the chain is not permanent: it will change with each tactical operation and depending on the mission at hand, and the qualities and capabilities of each cell member.
What does this have to do with Cop City? Well to answer that, let’s bring our thoughts back to the idea of defensive-offensive operations. See, the ‘left’ in North America is and has been in a reactive mode of operations. Each of our actions, struggles, and campaigns on the mass front have and continue to be a response to a particular forward offensive by the enemy. This reactive state places us at an immediate disadvantage, particularly when fighting the American empire of all empires, which is the most powerful possibly in world history. And some of ‘us’ actually think we can ‘win’ with cool signs and DJs playing music. And others think that all we have to do is engage in a little confrontational politics and this will stir up a dead people enough to pick up arms and build revolutionary institutions. REALLY?
So now that the Cop City project is on its way, I ask what would be the best ‘defensive-offensive’ approach to win this campaign against this expansion of the police state?
On March 30, 1970 in San Francisco, CA the Black Liberation Army attempted to bomb a police station (according to Justice Records)….
George Jackson said, “My pledge is to arms, my enemies are the institutions of the corporate fascist state, and anyone who aligns with them.”
Lolita Lebron and her Puerto Rican Independence comrades showed the way.
Cop City has presented itself as the perfect target. Many who would otherwise by unsympathetic to the armed struggle will understand, without much propaganda, the sabotage of this institution, particularly if done in a way that puts no one in danger of being injured. See, defensive-offensive operations usually act as their own propaganda, of self-promotion of the liberation movement(s) if you will.
This is just a thought.
Resurrect the Black Liberation Army!
Combat Genocide!