Topic of the Week: Attacks and Organization
The past few weeks have had a few more headliners than usual when it comes to death by bullet. While police and soldiers are killing people consistently throughout the year, the other recent attacks happen less often. What is consistent for these other shootings is that despite differences in personal motivation, there really haven't been any organizations to claim them. They have been so-called lone wolves, taking action towards whatever targets they decide. Although some of this motivation can be oriented towards a political perspective, calling any of these actions political, in the sense of an attentat, doesn't seem to sit right in the mouth.
Meanwhile, when the police attack or are attacked, their formal organizational framework provides a network of opinion that is already attached to their activites. Before, during, and after significant police events, the police are able to spin up narratives to direct the meaning of said significant events. This is not entirely dependent upon their acceptance in the media. It is a capacity provided by being a recognized member in a group that takes up formal positions.
When it comes to anarchist praxis, what can we learn from this? In the ongoing debates about organization, insurrectionary "resonance" of actions, personal communiques, and all the rest, we could certainly take the present moment and apply its facts to our theories. What does it seem like the capacity for individual action is at this point? What does it seem like the benefits can be in claiming solidarity by one's actions, as the Orlando shooter supposedly had with ISIS? What about formal group membership, like the cops? Did the Dallas shooter's actions have resonance?