An Open Letter To Jack Lomax

Dear Jack,
Thankyou for replying to my brief article critical of monkeywrenching
published in Nonviolence Today 12.  I was pleased to read your carefully
formulated thoughts on the matter and to have the opportunity to be a
continuing part of the debate about the meaning of nonviolent action.  I
believe this theoretical debate is a centrally important part of the
revolutionary struggle and that we certainly need much more of it.

I also appreciated the respect that you showed for what we are all trying to
do, and your efforts to clarify some of the misrepresentations about the role
of the Melbourne Rainforest Action Group at Nurrungar.  Still, I expected
nothing less from a fellow nonviolent activist and friend.

While I could reiterate my reasons for rejecting monkeywrenching and sabotage
as techniques for nonviolent action; I am conscious that they have been well
documented by many nonviolent activists and theorists (including myself)
previously; hence, I will not restate them here.

All that I will do is raise four points for clarification and then outline an
alternative approach to the one used by the group that you cite as an example
- the Tobacco Advertising Billboards Out Organisation (TABOO) which squirts
dye onto cigarette advertisements on billboards in Tasmania.

Firstly, when deciding what action to take when addressing a political
problem, I am very interested in trying to understand the underlying nature of
the conflict so that my course of action directly addresses the heart of the
conflict itself.  In my view, a conflict is deeper than its problematic
manifestation, and the causes, in essence, relate fundamentally to the values,
morals and emotions which underpin it.  Hence, I try to focus on these
elements rather than more superficial disagreements.  In actions, I
particularly try to highlight the difference between my opponent's short term
(often economic) interests and our shared long term values.  I like to pose
them a dilemma based on their values, morals and/or emotions.  I do not
believe that monkeywrenching addresses the heart of a conflict.  You cannot
monkeywrench patriarchy.

Secondly, when deciding what action to take, I am very interested in the
political effectiveness of the strategy and tactics.  I am very conscious that
activists are frequently (and justifiably) angry and frustrated at the gross
injustices perpetrated on the world.  However, while sharing that anger, I am
also concerned to make certain that my anger is expressed in politically
effective ways.  I simply do not believe that sabotage in any form is
politically effective.

The fundamental question for me is this: how are we going to bring about the
change we desire?  By physically destroying something?  Or by mobilising
ordinary people to such an extent that it is politically unacceptable?  The
latter course requires much more campaign work and maybe even more time; but
it is also likely to be more permanent and to have carryover benefits for
other revolutionary goals.  It is also realistic: damage to Nurrungar will not
remove it; making it politically unacceptable will.  Sabotage distracts people
from the real issues.

Thirdly, I am vitally interested in the question of campaign focus.  In the
case of Nurrungar, was the real aim to damage a radome or to encourage people
to question Australia's militarism? People generally associate military
activity and values with destruction; why reinforce the perception that
physical destruction is acceptable by doing it ourselves?  Why not demonstrate
our alternative values?  In TABOO's case, is the real aim the billboard or the
adverse effects on health caused by smoking?  You can destroy whole billboards
(even burn them down); but I doubt that this will help to delegitimize smoking
and cigarette companies.

Fourthly, I would like to clarify that I do not regard painting as a form of
monkeywrenching.  Gene Sharp and other prominent theorists have always
included painting as a form of nonviolent action; it is usually put in the
category of 'protest'.  I have been involved in several painting actions
myself - including the painting of rainforest murals on rainforest timber
ships.

I am aware that some people may still object to TABOO painting of billboards
on the grounds that it constitutes property damage (to the billboard poster). 
In my view, however, particularly if the action is undertaken in the context
outlined below, painting does not functionally undermine the dynamics of
nonviolent action.  I should add, however, that I would give lots of time to
planning the exact details of what we were going to paint; a little creativity
can go a long way to improving the prospects of public support for the action.
The rainforest murals were well received and a long way from the public
perception of 'vandalism'.

It is evident that the spectrum of actions is a continuum and no doubt the
debate about what is (and is not) nonviolent action will go on indefinitely. 
I believe that if we used the basic principles of nonviolent action which have
been well documented by several theorists, and continued to analyse both
successful and unsuccessful campaigns more closely, we would have a better
sense of what to do and how to avoid frequent repetition of tactical errors. 
In any case, what will be ultimately responsible for determining whether an
action is effective or not, in my view, is the total dynamics employed and the
context in which the action is undertaken.  It is because of its failure to
utilise these dynamics that monkeywrenching, in my view, is clearly
ineffective (as well as being morally unjustifiable).

TABOO
Turning to the example which you cite Jack, I should say that I agree with you
that these cigarette billboards represent 'vile visual filth'.  The question
is then: what is the best way of galvanising public opinion against this
advertising so that it becomes totally unacceptable for our public spaces to
carry it? I should clarify that my immediate goal in such a campaign may also
be different to TABOO's.  I would try to involve ordinary people in a process
designed to engender and express widespread moral outrage thus making it
untenable for companies to use such advertising; I would not be lobbying
elites (even the Green Independents) to act on our behalf.

What if TABOO had a planning meeting at which they chose a cigarette
advertising billboard in a very prominent but easily accessible location? 
What if TABOO decided to paint a noose around the neck of the cigarette
smoking 'star' of the billboard together with the words "Condemned to Cancer"
right across it? What if TABOO then had delegations inform the police, the
cigarette company concerned and other relevant officials that it intended to
do this on a particular time (in broad daylight) and date, three or four weeks
ahead, carefully and respectfully explaining the exact details and disciplined
nature of what was intended?

What if TABOO then advertised all of these details state-wide through the
alternative media and by news release to the mainstream media and invited
anyone concerned about cigarette advertising to bring a brush and paint to the
action?  What if TABOO arranged to display a large banner with the intended
(or similar) slogan - so that the message was clear anyway - just in case the
police arrested them before the billboard could be painted?  What if TABOO
warned people that they may be arrested (and briefed them on possible charges
before the action) so that people saw clearly where the law stands on
'cigarette deaths'? What if TABOO asked people present to act anyway out of
moral conviction and shared commitment?  What if two people got publicly
arrested for doing what they believed?  Or ten?  Or twenty?  Or (one day) a
hundred?

What if TABOO did all this to compel ordinary people, the company, the police
and others to ponder (more deeply than usual) where they stand on this issue
and whether they should get involved; and, in the case of the company and the
police, to agonize over whether or not to publicly arrest the activists? What
if TABOO chose several sites and nominated all places, times and dates in
advance so that the campaign could gather activists, momentum and support?

The revolution we need is a revolution of consciousness and culture; it is
about values, morals and emotions.  It will not necessarily happen in a hurry;
and there is certainly a price to be paid by those with the vision to be
catalysts.  The important question for me is simply: what is the best way to
get the most people involved in politically meaningful action soon?  I believe
that the answer is to found through some version of the above style of
approach.

The ultimate test of the success of the nonviolent philosophy is its capacity
to get people to accept personal responsibility for saving the planet.  We
must help them to understand that elites will not (in fact, cannot) do it for
us; and that we, without their active assistance, cannot either.  Confronting
people with the truth and giving them the chance to get actively involved is
what good nonviolent politics is all about.  This is why I am a committed
exponent of this technique of struggle.
In nonviolent solidarity
Robert J. Burrowes