What is leaderless resistance? Simply put, it is an alternative method of organizing resistance against oppressive governments. You can see how and why it would have been put to use by the left in the last century, eh?
Traditional organizations are hierarchical in structure -- pyramidal, with a clear chain of command from top to bottom. Liberal, conservative, and reactionary organizations have historically relied on hierarchical organization, because it keeps the rank-and-file tightly in line, under the control of a central executive body. Now, while this methodology works well for those in power -- whether the government and army, the police, a Church or a corporation -- for dissident groups, it's downright dangerous, and for anarchists, utterly unacceptable.
Why is it dangerous? Well, in the modern age we live in, the governments of the world use pervasive "countermeasures" to stymie and otherwise destroy dissident groups. This includes (but is not limited to) spying, eavesdropping, surveillance, threats, slander, kidnapping, agents provocateurs, sabotage, theft, torture, rape, and murder. Consider it a sliding scale of social oppression -- the more ruthless and tyrannical a regime, the harsher the methods they use. It also varies in terms of the level of unrest in a given population -- with a generally apathetic populace, the government doesn't do as much, because people do the work of the State for them, by keeping themselves in line. But in unruly areas, the State comes down hard on activists and dissidents.
For example, let's look at a long-time American ally, from the New Internationalist March 2000 issue, page 5:
The methods used to maintain cheap banana production have been thrown into sharp relief by a violent incident in Guatemal, where 200 heavily armed men recently surrounded a meeting of plantation workers and threatened them with death. The meeding had been called by the union Sindicato de Trabajadores del Banano de Izabal (SITRABI) to plan a demonstration for the following day. Almost 1,000 workers had been fired from three plantations owned by Bandegua, a Guatemalan subsidiary of Del Monte Fresh Produce....
Accompanied by the hired guns, the president of the local Chamber of Commerce turned up at the 13 October union meeting and informed workers that Bandegua would leave Guatemala unless the demonstration was cancelled. Union leaders were taken under armed guard to a local radio station. There they were forced to broadcast messages calling off the demonstration, sign letters of resignation from the union and the company, and make filmed statements confirming that they were acting voluntarily. They were then warned to leave the area immediately or be killed. The SITRABI union hall in Morales, where the meeting took place, is no more than 400 metres from the headquarters of the local police, who failed to intervene....
In Colombia, Cesar Herrera Torreglosa, the 35-year-old leader of the banana union SINTRAINAGRO, was assassinated on 13 December. Since 1989, 20 of the union's leaders and over 400 of its members have been assassinated--more than in any other union in Colombia, save the Teachers' Union.
While right-wingers may think affirmative action is the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse, in fact, even basic labor activism in places like Latin America is a life-and-death issue, with death being the common reward of would-be labor activists, usually preceded by torture, and in the case of women, rape. In regimes where PR must be used, these folks usually just "disappear" (wink wink).
The practical reality of leaderless resistance, then, is to create organization without organizations, because leftist groups get stomped by the State before they can "spread their poison". Haven't you noticed that progressive leaders tend to get assassinated (by lone gunmen, of course), while right-wing leaders invariably live long, healthy lives?
If there is no organization, there is nothing for the State to infiltrate, co-opt, murder, and destroy. The labor movement in the US would have been far more vigorous if the AFL-CIO and UAW hadn't abandoned the IWW model of radical organizing, which kept initiative at the rank-and-file level, where it belongs. Instead, the labor leaders were quickly co-opted and corrupted to become part of the system.
Leaderless resistance, then, throws the hierarchical organization model -- the darling of the capitalist authoritarian world -- out the window.
In its place are cells. The very mention of that word calls into mind conspiracy and Communism. Cells are independent groups that operate within a larger whole, pursuing generally common aims, without directly interacting with one another. They may know of one another generally, but never more than a few. That way, if (when) the State does come knocking, the cell can't betray the whole movement.
There are no marching orders, there are no central commands -- rather, there are many tiny groups of people, working together, knowing and trusting one another, to achieve a common end, most typically the end of a tyrannical regime. The French Resistance of World War II is a famous example of this -- the French Underground worked to fight the Nazis covertly, and most certainly used the cell system. Similarly, I'm willing to believe the Abolitionists of the pre-Civil War used something similar to it.
Leaderless resistance, then, is the tool of the disenfranchised, the poor, and the weak, who have neither the status, power, nor the resources to fight those they wish to fight on even terms. That is its greatest strength, because while it's easy for the State to infiltrate a large, anonymous organization, it's much harder for it to slip undercover agents into small cells, where everybody knows everybody else.
Further, because you're not relying on a single leader or group as a focal point for action, if anything happens to that leader (either assassination or corruption), the movement can continue. And it keeps initiative and activity at the local, rank-and-file level, where it should be, rather than concentrated at the top, in the hands of some elite.
What leaderless resistance depends on, however, is the existence of a common political and social culture. Sadly, among the Left in the US, this is still coming together, after decades of languishing. The reactionaries have a very pervasive network, particularly in certain regions. That's one reason why when a militia hijacks an armored car or blows something up, they are able to hide from the cops -- they have a community from which they draw their strength.
My desire is for the Left, and specifically, anarchists, to create their own community as well. It's certainly coming along, more than there has been for at least 70 years. My hope is it'll continue to progress, and the anarchist community will continue to grow.
But keep in mind that the State fears any kind of development like this. It monitors it all the time. As a result, leaderless resistance will surely have to come into use as the anarchist movement continues to grow, because the State will seek to crush it if it truly becomes a threat.
Anarchists are uniquely placed to use this methodology, however, compared to their other leftist counterparts, because we operate independently in a decentralized fashion, anyway. It's a natural method for us. However, it's also important to not isolate oneself from the broader movement.
So, consider leaderless resistance as a viable, anarchistic alternative to traditional mass-based organizations.
3/27/00
a4a
Return to Anarchy for Anybody