Democracy Ateneo Announcement 06-13-15

Compañer@s,

We will convene the Universidad de la Tierra Califas' Democracy Ateneo, Saturday, June 13, from 2 - 5 p.m. at Casa de Vicky (792 E. Julian St., San Jose) to resume our regularly scheduled reflection and action space and to explore some of the questions and struggles mentioned below.

On Saturday, May 30 the PMA against Militarization convened for its second in a series of "rolling assemblies" in East San Jose. A part of the U.S. Social Forum, the PMA against Militarization draws attention to the violence experienced in our communities as a result of militarization and militarism. More than an info gathering, the PMA against Militarization seeks to converge organizations, projects, and groups that have been confronting different aspects of state and state manufactured violence to share insights, analysis, strategy, and tools towards de-militarizing and de-criminalizing our communities. Although a successful gathering and much like the previous convening of the PMA against Militarization (Tactical Cartography Workshop, March 14), the second one held on May 30 revealed both challenges and opportunities as we engage assembly as a tool.

Not surprisingly, assembly is one of those concepts, or codes, that we assume has only one definition, which is to say, that we all have the same experience and therefore a shared notion of what exactly an assembly means. Indeed, the politics of assembly are not to be taken for granted. The Commission for Group Dynamics in Assemblies, a body born out of Spain's M15 movement, defines popular assemblies as "a participatory decision-making body which works towards consensus." According to the Commission, an assembly works best when everyone is committed to the time it takes to arrive at consensus through "collective thinking" --an approach to learning together where ideas are shared to construct new possibilities. Collective thinking requires that participants abandon an adversarial posture where they arrive at a gathering insistent on presenting their ideas and positions, often in a confrontational manner. The idea is not to defeat an opponent, but to engage collective thinking "to construct.... that is to say, two people with differing ideas work together to build something new." "The onus," the Commission concludes, "is therefore not on my idea or yours; rather it is in the notion that two ideas together will produce something new, something that neither of us had envisaged beforehand." (See, Commission for Group Dynamics in Assemblies, "A Quick Guide to Dynamics of Peoples Assemblies.")

The Invisible Committee, on the other hand, is less sanguine about assemblies, cautious about claiming the successes of assemblies without situating them in specific histories of struggle. "The assembly," the Committee warns, "is where one is forced to listen to bullshit without being able to reply, just like in front of the TV, in addition to being the place of an exhausting theatricality all the more false for its mimicking of sincerity, affliction, or enthusiasm." (p. 59) More to the point, the Committee explains "that nothing different can come out of an assembly than what is there already." An assembly "actualizes... the degree of existing commonality." At what point does an assembly domesticate an insurgency? Although advising against the fetishism of the assembly, the Committee is not ready to totally abandon it, but at great pains to point out how the assembly is claimed and used in different contexts. To be sure, the Committee rightfully draws our attention to the different moments of assembly in specific struggles: "An assembly of students is not a neighborhood assembly, which is not a neighborhood assembly organizing against the neighborhood's 'restructuring.' An assembly of workers is not the same at the beginning of a strike and at the end of one. And it definitely bears little resemblance to a popular assembly of Oaxacan peoples." (p. 61) (See, The Invisible Committee, To Our Friends)

Then what of the PMA against Militarization (San Jose) and its claim to appropriate assembly as a tool to advance the de-militarization and de-criminalization of our local communities? In the first instance, the PMA against Militarization is the result of a number of trajectories. The PMA against Militarization claims the Social Forum even though some have lost faith in the USSF's political capacity in recent years. As a People's Movement Assembly the PMA against Militarization attempts to rebuild the social infrastructure that has been devastated by a series of wars during the second half of the twentieth century and into the present, namely the convergence of the War on Drugs, the War on the Border, the War against Black and Brown youth, the War on Terror, the War on the Environment, and the War on the Social Factory. These wars constitute a permanent state of warfare and directed at our communities as part of a deliberate effort to minimize the gains of social movements of the 20th and 21st centuries. 

Second, and most importantly, the PMA against Militarization and its commitment to the power of gathering claims assembly as a tool. By a tool we mean any rational device generated collectively that contributes to the regeneration of a community. Here we make a distinction, drawing from Ivan Illich, between industrial tools and convivial ones. Industrial tools, like education, the shopping mall, transportation, etc., are in service of some other purpose than the community's collectively defined needs and interests. Convivial tools, on the other hand, are devices collectively invented in contexts of struggle by locally rooted people. (See, Illich, Tools for Conviviality) The most common convivial tools are those we generate to learn together. Thus, convivial tools are always limited by the specific contexts from which they emerge. In discussing "techniques," referenced much the same way we imagine tools here, the Invisible Committee warns that "techniques can't be reduced to a collection of equivalent instruments any one of which Man, that generic being, could take up and use without his essence being affected. Every tool configures and embodies a particular relation with the world, and influences the one who uses it." (p. 122-123)

In claiming assembly as a tool, we draw on the multiple spaces of assembly often less visible or acknowledged that proliferate as critical spaces of struggles across Califas. In East San Jose, mothers from Mexico, many with a tradition of assembly gather to make decisions about the creation of summer learning spaces for their children, in resistance to privatization and criminalization they see impacting their families in public and charter schools. At the same time, in public parks across the state, families whose loved ones have been killed by police mobilize communities and connect with other families, constructing critical systems of knowledge production that make available information about justice struggles, court dates, and police violence and policing strategies that impact their cases and communities. On sidewalks and plazas from Santa Ana to Santa Cruz to San Jose to San Francisco to Eureka and all across Califas, copwatch groups align with striking migrant agriculture workers and caravans from Mexico's lost 43 of Ayotzinapa, while houseless communities merge with university students, adjunct faculty and prison abolitionists as tents and tables are erected with food, clothing, books, and supplies. In these spaces, folks gather to explore the arts of assembly and begin to articulate collective cargos, or community determined obligations, through practice and engagement. How can we care for each other against this militarization? How can we stay safe? Thinking with the Invisible Committee's struggle to go beyond hearing “stories from a separated life,” these moments are spaces where we imagine and build the assembly as a space of listening that affirms our connection and empowers us. It is a space where we see possibilities for collective being where new resources and direct actions can emerge. If we think of autonomy and the collective subject as points of reference for the assembly, we can also raise important questions about democracy.

It is in this context that the "rolling assembly" engaged by the PMA against Militarization is a gesture to reclaim the assembly as a tool, an effort to gather folks to think together and make decisions collectively, in this instance, about how to minimize or eradicate all together the impact of state and state manufactured violence in our lives. Towards that end, thus far, we have learned from our first convening that there are multiple interconnected dimensions to militarization that impact our lives on a daily basis. In other words, as we confront one portion of it we must recognize other dimensions as well. By "rolling assembly" we are committing ourselves to a series of gatherings so we can become accustomed to working together, collectively generate resources, and arrive at a shared analysis. We recognize that we can not just declare we are an assembly without working at it first, relearning the habits of assembly. But, if an "assembly of Oaxacan peoples" is different from "an assembly of students" by what conceit is the PMA against Militarization attempting to make use of assembly as a tool? How can we share techniques or tools across struggles? How does assembly work in the specific context we claim?

South Bay and North Bay Crew

NB: If you are not already signed-up and would like to stay connected with the emerging Universidad de la Tierra Califas community please feel free to subscribe to the Universidad de la Tierra Califas listserve at the following url <https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unitierracalifas>. Also, if you would like to review previous Democracy Ateneo and Social Factory Ateneo announcements and summaries as well as additional information on the ateneo in general please see <http://ccra.mitotedigital.org/ateneo>. Please note we have altered the schedule of the Democracy Ateneo so that it falls on the second Saturday of the month.

###