On Diversity of Tactics

Now that the Olympics are over and the crowds have died down, I feel compelled to throw my two cents into the debate on the question of diversity of tactics that has been sweeping Vancouver’s left. Diversity of tactics, of course refers to the idea that demonstrators should be free to use different tactics and that organizers should respect one’s right to do so. The implication is that individuals should be free to exercise direct action and civil disobedience regardless of the intent of the organizers or the majority of people attending the demonstration. The anarchists are quick to demand “You must respect a diversity of tactics” – or in other words “You must respect my right to do whatever the hell I want”.

I must confess, that this idea of respecting diversity of tactics seems ridiculous to me. In any other context such arguments would be insane. Can you imagine a hockey player telling his coach to respect his right to a diversity of tactics and allow him to throw the play-book out the window? How about a soldier on a battle field telling his superiors to respect his right to attack or retreat at his own pleasure? Or a sailor on a ship insisting to his captain that he should be able to point the sails in whatever direction he sees fit? Of course not. A more serious approach is needed.

A very quick look at the results of the demonstration the day after the opening ceremonies, where half a dozen people smashed windows and vandalized vehicles is enough to pass judgement on the entire question. Those few individuals, succeeded in discrediting the thousands who marched the evening before. Only days earlier, the polls were showing a large majority opposing the Olympics and sympathetic to the upcoming demonstrations. The Heart-Attack demonstration was the turning point in public opinion.

So-called diversity of tactics, on a small demonstration can discredit a cause. The same actions on a larger demonstration can give the cops and excuse to tear-gas and attack an entire crowd. And in a revolutionary situation, respecting a right to diversity of tactics will get people killed! The class struggle is not a game; it is a life and death struggle.

This is not to say that there is no place for civil disobedience. Direct action and civil disobedience can be most effective tools when used correctly. But these things must be coordinated and organized by a leadership that is prepared to go into battle and win. This is ultimately a question about leadership. A full understanding of the objectives and potential outcome of direct action is necessary before it is utilized. Thousands of people blocking streets or occupying a building or even charging a police line can be the decisive moment in a mass struggle. Conversely, a few individuals smashing windows and tipping over newspaper boxes has never accomplished anything.

While a small handful would argue that any form of leadership is oppression, such arguments are completely alien to the working class movement. Any worker that has ever walked a picket line knows whose side his picket captain is on. And anyone involved in an actual struggle knows the necessity of having a picket-captain on a picket line, or a marshal on a demonstration, or a sergeant at arms at a convention, or a shop steward on a shop floor, or a captain on a battle field. The question of leadership is one of decisive importance in the struggle to overthrow capitalism - and the question of diversity of tactics has already been answered by events.