Before I begin, I’d like to state that my public external critiques of the “Stop Cop City” & “Defend the (Weelaunee) Forest” Movement were all originally deleted from my public pages after realizing that they were somewhat reactionary. I’ve sat with comrades of mine who have guided me toward crafting more “responsive” critiques. However; my ability to critique responsively does not and will never depend on comforting and being in alliance with settlerism, antiblack ideologies, environmental racism, & NPIC tendencies.
You’re gravely mistaken if you have assumed that (public) critiques of stop cop city only began during moments of visible repression in the movement; (such as Tort’s murder). Any critique of public critics of the movement that paint that narrative is a deliberate illusion & lie. Many on “the left” who refuse to become an enemy to the social (& therefore material) institution of whiteness & its ever growing tentacles result to “fed-jacketing” in order to silence critique. They will also choose to conveniently label all critique of the movement as “dangerous” to the movement. I’ve come to personally know this as a “settler 101” tactic.
Whenever folks become bold enough to internally challenge both above ground and underground characteristics of social movements of course resistance will follow. However there is a difference between resistance that result from genuine internal struggle and resistance that result from pseudo-authoritarian hostility. This tactic is most definitely utilized by environmentalists and eco-activists who abide by colonial and/or settler tactics of militant Land Defense. Land Defense militancy tactics should be evolving with the (neo)colonial times and should always be applied via context to the surrounding communities (who are also an extension of the ecosystem).
I’ve stated early on that I began making internal critiques of the movement following my examination of settler and exclusionary praxes. After these critiques fell on unrelenting ears and/or pulled the curtain back on a group of self-proclaimed “movement leaders” in a so-called “autonomous decentralized movement” a couple of folks and I (specifically organizing around outreach and a lack of truly strategic and revolutionary outreach praxis) attempted to begin organizing around our own concerns.
Let’s keep in mind that just because a movement is led by an “anonymous” collective doesn’t make it “autonomous”. The movement was (un)clearly being led by seasoned organizers/elders and those with a monopoly on financial and social resources.
One must question what an “autonomous decentralized movement” means when folks aren’t willing to become ungovenerable to the inherent and/or socialized ideology of “whiteness”. Whiteness as a social institution carries with it a violent & inherent hierarchy that should be consistently challenged by us all; regardless of race. If we are not constantly confronting it when it shows up in space, tactics, discourse, decision making; our anti-capitalism and eco-activism is obviously going to be missing a key element of our collective power to resist.
There was not only a problem with “whiteness”, &, neo-colonial Land ideologies but with class as well.
The problem with the (neo)liberal co-optation of revolutionary ideologies and language is that it has taken the intended revolutionary use (of what many call) “identity politic” (birthed by third world black feminists) and has bastardized and molded it into a mere politic of “representation”.
We must all actively struggle to move beyond this, and it will require confronting not just those who use their race to avoid a more principled praxis but those who (specifically white folks) utilize political and ideological titles like “anarchist” as an excuse to not interrogate where they are lacking in true revolutionary praxis.
Finally, “autonomous decentralized” social movements that lack actual (anonymous) infrastructure for those involved to safely and internally voice concerns or critique is not an “autonomous decentralized” movement. You will often be able to pull back the “invisible” curtain to see those with move power & access to resources as the main “decision makers” while those who organize in a movement (but do not sit behind the invisible curtain) and haven’t been ideologically trained to notice the curtain at all have a perfect illusion of “decision making” power.
Can a movement led by mostly settlers and/or with heavy 501c3 involvement be a true “autonomous decentralized social movement” or a true revolutionary movement that ushers in unprecedented change…the answer is no. It doesn’t mean the movement should cease to exist; it merely means the movement has fallen prey to the co-optation of truly revolutionary concepts and militant praxes of resistance.
-o. mars
Originally posted on Patreon