Add new comment

I was one of the people who wrote "Rhythm and Ritual", and was intrigued by your interpretation. (I originally got to these comments because i think the discussion about how settler-based organizing can most effectively damage colonialism and materially support indigenous "land back!" is really important. I hope that conversation continues, but i also want to address what may be a misunderstanding about R&R.)

The "Portland model" was an attempt to report and label something that i think pretty much anyone in the streets last summer would agree was our actual emergent behavior. It certainly is not my (or anyone's) agenda that we want to impose. It was a specific shared result of actions night in, night out, mostly not "organized" by pre-existing "radicals".

It changed on the 100th night due to a handful of people making a choice that almost no one had any input on or ability to influence, but that affected thousands. Not only that night, but over the months since then, as the experience that night was a factor (among others) in the rapid thinning of numbers.

If molotovs had become part of the repertoire in a way that allowed for broader discussion, preparation, and tactical consideration of how they can be effective, i think the whole thing could have had a much more enlivening outcome. (Interestingly, in an earlier draft of the piece we specifically mentioned that more discussion beforehand and contestation in the streets could help ensure that people had practiced throwing mollies thoroughly -- your point!) And i think even the very process of struggling over it, in debates and in the streets, could have helped people build a deeper sense of strength together, even through frictions and conflicts.

At least, that's the core suggestion of the piece: ideological, abstracted "purism" is less useful than a close attention to what's really working in building our capacity to act.

Here's my question to you: i don't want a proto-state in the streets, or anywhere, because i don't want some small elite imposing their will on others. On the other hand, when thousands of people are in the streets with an established culture of what they do together, and then a couple people do something like throw mollies without any warning at the very beginning way before anyone's ready for confrontation, doesn't *that* impose the will of a few on the whole crowd?

The main point in R&R was that we need some other way to navigate this tension between different forms of elitism, while still supporting people in doing their own thing, and also not having mad bureaucracy. We offered some thoughts about how to get there. What do you think?