Many activists (both in EF! and other struggles) share a similar frustration with a lack of unity and solidarity in responding to police repression and the inability to escalate and evolve tactically. Many of us feel unfulfilled by the repetitive, almost compulsory gadgetry of tripods and lockdowns.
Like activists at Cove/Mallard, Cascadia and beyond, EF!ers in the redwoods have explored the cutting edge of blockading and tree-sitting techniques. But we've also organized mass rallies and civil disobedience actions, drawing from the dense population of sympathetic citizens in our region.
It's a strategy that almost requires that you appeal to the least radical of the masses, which affects the path of the collective will. The "masses" we've seen here in Humboldt don't resemble the rabid, high-risk, confrontational throngs of the animal rights movement or urban European protests. Our protests are tailor-made to reflect who we are. I don't think you have to be aggressive to affect change, much less to save trees. But without either close-knit affinity groups or charismatic "organizers" taking leadership roles to inspire tactical escalation, mass action in our region (and others) can really feel like a collective descent into the world of irrelevant, "risk-free" activism.
This is due to a lack of strategic thinking, partly because of inexperience and partly because of fear. It's easy to form affinity with close friends who all agree to stay with the lockdown or to sit down when the police lash out, and sometimes it happens spontaneously. But when there are 200 people, all with their own personal thresholds, how can someone rely on everyone else's willingness to stand their ground?
You can rant and rave and try to inspire fiery emotions, but when the dust clears, and there are 20 brave warriors suffering pain compliance holds in some rural cul-de-sac or suicidally occupying a busy urban intersection, it's hard to answer the question, "What's the point?" (especially when the trees are still falling, and the media cameras have fled). Being a mercenary to prove how hardcore you are might be a quick outlet for your pent-up aggression, but what does it actually accomplish?
At Headwaters, we've finally reckoned with a possible answer to this common problem: affinity groups, duh. The anti-nuke movement has organized that way for years, but I haven't experienced a real, functional model in any eco-defense campaigns.
The obvious advantage with an affinity group is that you know ahead of time how far you can push it, and your numbers are your power. You can agree beforehand to hunger strike in jail or to all sit down when the cops order you to disperse.
Yes, we do respect the judgment of those who came before concerning property damage, and it has nothing to do with glorifying Pacific Lumber's claim of ownership. It has to do with being part of a community-based movement and, in some ways, preserving our reputation.
EF! has a unique, inherited role in the wider Headwaters campaign, of which direct action is only one element. The liberal/reformist slogans Spike described are a very real part of the greater Headwaters campaign. EF! has taken steps to work with the greater campaign, rather than against it, hoping to attract folks to more radical tactics and to encourage healthy interaction with workers. The no sabotage rule and the "no verbal violence" part of the code are both a part of this too.
When participants agree to the nonviolence code, we take on the collective responsibility of calling each other on it. New participants know it from the beginning and, by and large, they choose to abide by it while at basecamp. Beyond the code, as anyone who has visited basecamp knows, we tolerate a lot of disruptive behavior because we truly want people to be able to just stumble upon us and get involved, maybe even find direction in life through the experience, as so many of us have in years past.
As far as I know, there are no EF! groups actively claiming acts of sabotage anymore, but our movement seems to disagree about our relationship to the issue. I think no EF! group need either claim nor condemn nonviolent, covert actions, but every campaign has a right to utilize its own unique toolbox. In our particular context, many of us feel that the long-term work of social and economic transformation is an issue of challenging class power as much as advocating for biodiversity and ecosystem survival. Monkeywrenching a gyppo (contract) logger's equipment in a rural area, where there simply is no other line of work, seems like a flagrant abuse of class privilege.
As we all know, the corporate war on the Earth involves complex economic weaponry that prevents simple solutions and armors itself against fundamental challenges. Many of us recognize the potential of local residents, timber sympathizers and workers themselves to challenge Maxxam's agenda - and we see it happening before our eyes. It's more important for us to be a radical voice within that chorus than to distract it with tactics that alienate ourselves from that movement and don't save any trees.