A critique of genetiX snowball
"Agit-Wank"
We hope to show how genetiX snowball (gXs) is not only flawed both
philosophically and tactically in itself, but is actually detrimental to the
radical ecological movement as a whole. We argue that gXs should not get the
support of activists and we will propose a way in which a truly radical and
effective campaign should proceed.
genetiX snowball’s tactics
gXs hopes to achieve its aims by "nonviolently, accountably and safely
pull[ing] up a small number of genetically modified crops and convinc[ing]
others to do the same". We have problems with this:
- By letting the police and landowners know in advance where and when it will
strike, gXs enables them to prevent that strike from actually having a direct
effect in destroying a field. Hence the fact that on one action 11 activists
only managed to remove 10 plants.
- By insisting on participants disclosing their identities gXs makes it easier
for the authorities to arrest/injunct/sue/ imprison those involved. (Not to
mention the issue of future state surveillance and repression of individuals.)
This means that there must be a very high turnover of activists in order for gXs
to continue. This is highly unlikely in the event of newcomers soon getting
nicked, since most people do not wish to become "pig fodder" or incur
large debts.
- By insisting that those involved remove no more than "a small number of
plants" each, gXs makes it less likely that any one action will succeed in
destroying a test site.
genetiX snowball’s tactics appear to be highly limiting, self-defeating even.
Why does it insist on criteria which prevent it becoming effective? We believe
it has to do with the problem of legitimising action.
Legitimising action
This problem is a very real and relevant one. It is our view that resistance
does not need to legitimise itself according to the terms of the system and its
ideology. It is legitimate precisely because it resists these things. gXs, in
contrast to this, does not contextualise itself within capitalism or the
resistance to it. It is therefore forced to justify itself by emphasising its
ultra non-violence and accountability and the moderation and reasonableness of
its demands. A case of "fuck the disobedient let’s get civil". gXs is
not resistance but souped-up civil disobedience, spectacular lobbying, and
therefore shoots itself in the foot.
Single-issue reformism
This lack of radical analysis leads to further problems with gXs. Insistence on
ultra-"reasonable[ness]" prevents it from wanting anything more than
to effect change within the system. Emphasising the single-issue nature of a
campaign in this way is to imply support for, or at least tolerance of, all the
other attendant social and ecological abuses of the system. This is the
essential problem with aiming for any single-issue reform, especially one so
hideously moderate: if you achieve it you have nowhere to go. You cannot jump
from issue to issue without losing your legitimacy.
Reforms should be welcomed as small-scale improvements achieved as a by-product
of radical agitation, not as end goals in themselves. To aim for single issue
reform is to walk into a dead-end.
Big v Cool (and the possibility of being both)
One issue which is often raised in defence of gXs is that of its potential to
appeal to sections of society to which wider ecological resistance does not
generally appeal, and therefore to introduce them to it. Again we will state the
reasons why this is not the case, and why, even if it were, it would not justify
gXs’s extreme moderation.
- As already mentioned, the insistence on accountability is 3) likely to
prevent people getting involved since most people do not want to risk
retribution, let alone to court it.
- Even if gXs does attract a lot of people, it will not attract them to the
wider direct action resistance because it is not a part of that resistance. It
has been argued that gXs acts as a stepping stone into Earth First!-style direct
action. On the contrary, it may well prevent people from becoming further
radicalised.
- The British public is firmly opposed to genetic engineering (77 percent
against, according to recent polls). There is therefore no need to be very
moderate in order to court public opinion. On the contrary, there is great
opportunity to push the radical agenda and to be at the cutting edge of struggle
for real change without alienating public opinion.
- Even if it is currently impossible to be radical without alienating public
opinion, then we should prioritise radicalism over mass appeal. After all, what
do we want that mass appeal for? If you value size over content then join the
Labour party.
The dangers of gXs
It is our view that gXs is not simply a flawed campaign in itself, it is
actively damaging to the wider ecological resistance movement. It is not
actually a part of that resistance and yet it takes on the appearance of being
so, both in terms of its close association with groups like Earth First! (EF!)
and by using direct action imagery such as the pulling up of plants. In this way
it blurs the lines between lobbying and direct action, a blurring which comes
dangerously near in its effect to recuperation [ref #1]. Far from being a
stepping stone which can be used to help people into direct action, it is, to
mix our metaphors, and repeat ourselves, a false summit.
By legitimising itself through its "reasonable" tactics and demands,
gXs renders illegitimate, by its own criteria, those campaigns which do not
reach this level of "reasonable[ness]". In this way, it shows itself
to be part of the process of co-option of the radical ecological movement. The
term co-option refers to the process by which the bulk of a radical challenge is
bought off, with increased support, in return for abandoning its more radical
activity. The other side of the process is called marginalisation and applies to
those elements which cannot be co-opted. The challenge is thus negated. gXs is
part of the co-option of ecological resistance and by accepting this role it
reinforces and increases our marginalisation.
A proposal for fighting genetic engineering
When taking on a campaign there are three main issues to be addressed: Firstly,
that the campaign has maximum potential for public involvement. Secondly, that
those who are involved can have maximum effect. Thirdly, that the campaign can
be linked to other issues and the struggle widened and advanced.
Taking this into account we propose action on three levels:
- Stepping up the covert site trashings. These are a good way in which a small
number of people can achieve maximum effect.
- Land squats on test sites. These are perhaps the best means of outreach on
the issue and can also serve as a base for covert and accountable actions in the
surrounding area.
- Public actions on test sites and at the laboratories and offices where the
research for and administration of genetic engineering is done. This has the
potential to involve large numbers of people in directly effective
action.
Such action could include marches on and rallies at test sites (which might, we
feel, result in site trashings), as well as occupations of offices and
laboratories. Actions such as these have the potential to involve large number
of people and to simultaneously allow those people to have a real effect through
their involvement.
Action like this would not rely on moderate tactics and demands. It could be
backed up with propaganda stressing the need to stop all genetic engineering and
tying genetic engineering into the wider issue of corporate control of our
lives, which would provide scope for broadening the struggle. It would also be
highly inclusive in that all participants would be free to choose whether to
actually destroy plants or other property, how many plants to remove and whether
or not to be responsible to the state for their action.
Action like this is nothing if not reasonable in response to the corporate
assault on our lives that is genetic engineering.
The above was produced a group of activists in Leeds, England. For reasons of
space, Peace News has edited out a section criticising gXs’s demands. For
full text: Agit-Wank, c/o Leeds EF!, 16 Sholebroke Ave, Chapeltown, Leeds, LS7
3HB, England.
Ref #1. "Recuperation" used in this context is a Situationist
term. It refers to the process by which the imagery of rebellion is taken by the
system and sold back to us so that it is no longer a threat and may even be
beneficial to them. The appearance of the "Eco Warrior" in soap operas
in the wake of the Swampy phenomenon is an example of this.