ID: From a Comrade posted:
"In the coming year, things will pop off. When they do, someone will volunteer to do security. They will possibly show up with a lot of battle rattle and a take-charge, can-do attitude.
Do not let them do security. Ask them to read some bell hooks. Ask them how many women they know trust them. Ask them to do some reproductive labor first, like working in a kitchen. Talk to them in depth about political theory. Understand their motivations and their relationship to violence and power.
Over half of people who want to do security, are people who should never do security. The biggest red flag for weeding out bad security people, is that they are eager to do security."
This is definitely a conundrum. To some degree, everyone should have a mind to physical defense, but there’s a lot of value to relieving most people from that being their primary concern by making physical defense some people’s primary concern.
There will always be some risk, especially when people who don’t know each other very well are coming together to try to achieve similar goals.
Ideas:
¡Not It!
<youHaveBeenMadeAnInstanceAdmin>
¡¡¡NOOOOOOOOO!!!
If you’d made this comment in a vacuum, I’d generally agree, but as it relates to this post, I don’t.
For starters, we’re talking about security, not self defence. So while yes, everyone who is able should learn some degree of self defence, not everyone can, or should not only be armed, but be given the power over others that comes with being armed.
A rotation doesn’t solve the problem of violent and or power hungry misogynists (or racists, or queerphobes or so on, all of which exist on the left just like they do everywhere else in society) having a weapon and the power that comes with it.
Not everyone should be given a weapon, it’s as simple as that, and putting other members of the group at risk for the sake of superficial inclusion (read: soothing the fragile egos of power hungry people who refuse to even acknowledge their privilege, let alone check it) is not the solution.
I don’t think we’re really that far apart here.
At the end of the day, security is physical defense, use of force. That’s the level to which conflicts can escalate.
There’s always risk, and depending on the circumstances, the participants present may see the risk of weaker security as greater than Specified Person standing guard. The ideas I put forward - rotation, low stakes “practice runs” - are not intended to eliminate risk, only to reduce it. Hell, security doesn’t have to mean wieliding a firearm. Just a strong physical presence of multiple people can be enough. Batons, pepper spray, simple physical strength can all be put to use before firearms are.
Definitely - someone you don’t know shows up to your event with a bunch of tacticool gear and a rifle and says “I’ll run security” - the fuck you will, pick up a shovel and start filling sandbags. But in cases where it’s not so clear cut, and where there’s a clear need for security, decisions would need to be made on the fly. Already having some ideas in mind about how to minimize risk wouldn’t hurt.
I think the key point for me is that the needs and safety of the more marginalised people in a group should always be prioritised over anything else, which is not the same as expecting all risk to be eliminated, but otherwise we’re just maintaining harmful structures, in which case, what’s the point?
Ah - maybe I failed to clarify this:
When I’m thinking about “security,” I’m thinking about securing events from people who oppose the event or the people at it. For example, if you have some people who are doing an occupy-style thing, camped out, someone is going to need to be on watch while most people are sleeping. Today, the most serious thing they should have is the aforementioned pepper spray and baton, along with a very loud whistle. If something kicks off in the middle of the night, it’s going to be all hands on deck right quick.
I’m not thinking about “internal security.”
My ideas are also more of a “if you have to have physical security, maybe these notions will reduce the risk of the people performing that job being counterproductive.”
I’m not sure what internal security means, the kind of security I’m thinking about is communal - the people tasked with keeping the group safe, be it during direct action, a stay in a safe house, living daily life in a squat or other community on the outskirts of society, all of it, and in my mind they are armed with firearms to oppose outside threats like cops and out of uniform fascists.
This falls under self defence in my eyes, which is why I made the differentiation in the first reply, but now I think we’ve both clarified, and I agree were generally on the same page - those means (pepper spray, baton, whistle), along with a buddy system to keep each other in check seems perfectly reasonable and would be less restrictive as to who could safely be tasked with the job.
Still something we always should be keeping in mind, who we give power to, and who we might be taking power away from by doing so.
“Internal security” would be along the lines of an ad hoc police enforcing rules or behaviors of participants, as opposed to defending participants from external aggression.
100%. It’s important to have these conversations now, so that decisions can be made in the moment with greater insight. You’re a good person for bringing up things that need discussion and then engaging. Thank you.
Oh yeah, no, we don’t want that…
As for the rest, I appreciate it but there’s no need really, just trying my best with the few resources I have, and definitely not always engaging lmao, but I do appreciate being able to at least have these conversations with some people lol so thank you, too. 😊