protest tactic¶

Anyone who tells you that deliberately getting arrested is a productive "protest tactic" is (whether intentionally or not) leading you astray from sound military doctrine. The only way to believe willing disempowerment is useful is if you don't believe in taking power. It is long past the time to move past the liberal tactics of begging for recognition and reform by a hostile culture and an oppressive capitalist state. We are not here to "make a point" or "be heard" or "garner sympathy." We're here to win. Of course, we shouldn't judge the efficacy of particular actions by whether or not everyone makes it out unscathed. We shouldn't be paralyzed by fear of losses. In revolution, there will always be failed operations, casualties, captives taken, collateral damage, and so on. But those losses can both be assessed by central command structures to improve their practice in the future and can be judged within the context of a series of other coordinated operations, many of which will succeed. Without that central organization, loss is just loss. The "tactic" of losing on purpose was never meant to help us gain experience so we could update our strategy and build new successes. It was always informed by ideological commitment to entreating (and maintaining!) the power structures that rule our society. And no, I'm NOT accusing the Merrimack protesters of being feds, liberals, or trying to get arrested on purpose.

I'm saying that anyone telling you "This is good actually, getting arrested is a legitimate strategy!" doesn't know what they're talking about. It's completely disrespectful to their sacrifice to refuse to learn from the loss or even recognize it as a loss at all. We need to update our strategy. Build a practice: study, act, review, act again. Until we win.