Wednesday, Jan. 17, 2001, noon EST

Kadd Stephens is a part of the Justice Action Movement, a group protesting the upcoming inauguration of President-elect George W. Bush. The group will rally in Dupont Circle on Saturday.

Stephens will be working as a medic in the protests. He is an anarchist and former student at American University. He has been involved in movements against political and economic domination for the last five years, and was heavily involved in last year's protests against the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Outside of protest activities, he writes for various radical publications and has taught classes on nonviolence at Oak Hill juvenile prison, as well as spoken on various topics as a guest speaker at various high schools and colleges.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

washingtonpost.com: Thanks for joining us today, Kadd Stephens. Can you start by telling us about the Justice Action Movement and why you're protesting the inauguration?

Kadd Stephens: The Justice Action Movement (JAM) is essentially just a (rather eclectic) group of individuals who came together as a result of growing outrage over the role of corporations in our political system (indeed, in our lives in general), and the marginalization of human needs that has come to characterize a system predicated on profits and the service of capital. Contrary to what has likely been submitted to the public, there is no particular ideology binding JAM together -- unless of course we consider things like compassion and basic human dignity to be ideological. JAM is comprised of a wide variety of individuals who are committed to a radical, nonviolent transformation of our current social organization - a transition away from centralization of wealth and power, and toward directly democratic institutions which adequately meet the basic needs and human desires of every sector of our population.

I think it's rather Orwellian to interrogate someone's reasons for protesting this inauguration. The real question is why WOULDN'T you protest this inauguration? We're talking about a rich oil tycoon who set records in soliciting support from the very corporate sector he comes from, judicially murdered more people than any other governor (via the death penalty), was rebuked by our own federal courts for his disastrous neglect for child healthcare (not to mention healthcare in general) and then came to power through electoral chaos in a state governed by his brother. Rest assured, the rest of the world would be laughing at us for standing by with our hands in our pockets, if it weren't for the fact that most of them are terrified of what a Bush administration will mean for the rest of the world.

Realistically, the situation would hardly be any different with a Gore administration, either. Any differences that might occur would be marginal, and all of the similarities would likely be accepted out of hand by liberals as the best we could get. Thus, JAM would be taking to streets no matter who was elected.

Paul in Dupont, DC: I'm interested in participating, but I've heard that signs and banners will be banned supposedly for reasons of safety and not to protect the president elect from embarrassment. If this is the case then how will the protesters distinguish themselves from the adoring masses? How can I help?

Kadd Stephens: Yeah, the guidelines the police have laid out for protests this weekend have been horribly vague. As someone who studied law in college, I would say shamefully so. The truth of it is that no matter what guidelines are set, the police are essentially going to do whatever they want. The night before the April 16th protests against the World Bank and IMF last year, the DC cops arrested 600 people (including journalists and passersby) on charges of marching without a permit...trouble was that they had issued the permit for that particular march weeks ago. Given this pattern of disregard for any sort of legal standard, the fact that the police have been so vague about the upcoming protest is rather disturbing. The Kansas City star just reported that Gainer is promising a "phenomenal show of force", whatever that means.

My suggestion would be to choose your means of expression based on what you think reasonably coincides with the legal standards for protesting the inauguration. According to police I've seen quoted, sticks have to be 3/4 of an inch around (I might add that their justification for this entailed rather racist statements about Iranians and a protest once staged by a group of them). I haven't seen anything about banners, so if you have a banner that doesn't require posts or sticks, that might be better -- this doesn't mean that it won't get confiscated, etc -- it simply means you have a better shot of getting in. Of course, you could always write up a leaflet, and distribute it to people you see on the streets, or coordinate a teach-in in your community about issues you think are central to why we should be out in the streets on Saturday. Really, our resistance need not be confined to direct confrontations of authority. Be creative.

Orlando, FL: I've been following the news fairly closely about JAM, and it seems like they have pushed "playing-safe" to new levels, as far as left-of-Democrat, post-J18 umbrella activist groups go. Does any of, what appears to be, giving into the corporate media and police, conflict with your personal ideals as an anarchist?

Kadd Stephens: I've had this discussion with a number of people, and I think it's an important question to be dealt with. Without spending too much time addressing the nuances of anarchism and strategy, I think what JAM represents is exactly what the anarchist movement has been running its collective mouth about for roughly two centuries. There are arguably a few celebrity personalities that have surfaced in radical organizing since Seattle, and while I think the world of those people, I'm also encouraged by the relatively new faces who have spontaneously come together to form JAM. These are average people, who haven't necessarily spent ten years coordinating Greenpeace actions, who saw something they were seriously concerned about and organically organized a means of responding. It's about as apolitical as an organization gets. In short, mistakes are going to be made. And while I disagree with some of the steps that have been taken, I also acknowledge that radical potential that such a spontaneous organizing effort represents. No one's perfect, certainly not me...so I'm not about to throw this baby out with the bath water, you know? We don't need another Emma Goldman, we need grassroots organization. That's what JAM represents.

Dupont, DC: Are there any protests for tomorrow's celebration on the mall? What do you say to critics who claim that protesters do not know what they are protesting for, that they might as well be their protesting Ricky Martin's appearance?

Kadd Stephens: Yes, there are actions planned for tomorrow. I should say right now that there are going to be actions planned for as long as this system continues to exploit and rape every resource on this planet for the sake of profit. Which means, you don't need me to tell you where to be, or what to do. If you see something that needs to be addressed, to wait for someone else to organize around it, just do it. None of us is nearly as stupid as the corporate media treats us. So, my suggestion is that you take stock of what's happening and find a way to plug yourself into the resistance against it, with your own mind and your own heart. Otherwise, you can check out www.j20.org to read about specific actions that are already being planned.

Washington DC: What sort of protest access are you expecting during the inauguration? It seems to me that the police are going to be out in force to harass and basically quell any sort of visible protest.

Kadd Stephens: Cops are cops (i.e. unaccountable). So, there's really no way for me to speculate as to what to expect. A Brazilian news show ran footage of Chief Ramsey assuring the press that the police would handle the World Bank/IMF protests nonviolently, then showed footage of him holding a young woman by her hair, punching her in the face, and then throwing her to the ground. So, who knows?

My feeling is that the cops are going to be there to make sure the Orwellism of this corporate coronation goes undisturbed. Take that for what it is. They may be more concerned about their PR this time around, they may not. I'm not holding my breath.

Richmond Va.: During the April 16th protests there were thousands of people arrested. Do you expect the same sort of incarceration tactics to be used by the DC Police force?

Kadd Stephens: Seeing that I know of no direct action being planned for the inauguration, I don't see why the cops would legally have any reason to arrest anyone. But like I said, I wouldn't trust a cop with a fart.

Honestly, I doubt there will be a mass arrest scenario on the part of the police. I think, aside from what will likely be massive repression of first amendment rights, showing up to protest is a relatively safe activity.

Lincoln, NE:

Are you protesting Bush because of his policies or because of the way he became President?

I firmly believe, despite the right's spin, he was appointed--not elected. Do you agree with that?

Kadd Stephens: Personally, I'm protesting because I don't believe that some rich white guy in Washington, DC has any right even approving policies that impact people in Lincoln, NE. That's your job. That's what we call democracy. I'm protesting because we are the only industrialized democracy in the world that doesn't offer its citizens universal healthcare (despite our "booming economy" and immense wealth). I'm protesting because the city I live in is still a landlocked colony, where people of color make up a majority of the prison population and are forced to endure Third World living conditions. (I could go on, but I won't)

There's no question that Bush's legitimacy is a sham. But I don't think simply correcting that particular incident is going to substantively impact much in this country -- for the very same reasons I don't think assassinating political officials makes any sense. Moreover, I think this event should be a flagship for what's overwhelmingly wrong with our system, and why serious transformation needs to take place not at the ballot box...but in the streets, in our workplaces, in our homes, in our relationships, etc.

Silver Spring, MD: Is GWB aware of this rally? Would you please make sure he gets the message loud and clear? While he will be our prez for four years the fact remains that he is 'illegitimate' and that will be his legacy to this land of 'freedom and democracy.'

Kadd Stephens: He's likely aware of it, but it doesn't much matter. We're not asking for his permission...and we don't plan to ask in the future, either. Our revolution will be one that comes from below, and we don't need politicians to approve or notice. We just need each other.

Falls Church: What do you think the chances are of winning
the suit over guidelines? OR does the suit impact your plans at all?

Kadd Stephens: There's really no telling. Ultimately, winning could certainly draw attention to law enforcement's contempt for free speech, and it's alliance with the propertied classes (or its role as the enforcement mechanism of their regime), but simply holding our breath for that still means we're asking their permission to correct a system that they were supposed to protect us from.

Washington, DC: What can I do to protect myself from false arrests and abuse from police if I'm protesting in a legal, non-violent manner? Should I bring a camera and tape recorder?

Kadd Stephens: Yes, cameras are a great way to document police abuses. Certainly, they are no shield, and don't ensure anything, but I would encourage bringing them. The best way to avoid arrest is to avoid proximity to cops. Ultimately, I don't think that mass arrests are likely, but I can't promise that.

washingtonpost.com: The discussion will resume shortly. Thanks for your patience!

Fellow Former Eagle: What time are you rallying on Saturday? If I want to protest mainly on the grounds of election fraud, is there a better location at which to rally?

Kadd Stephens: My suggestion is to get down to the site as early as possible, since they're essentially trying to squeeze 750,000 people through 16 checkpoints. It could bottleneck really quickly.

As far electoral fraud goes, you should check out www.votermarch.org -- which is an effort more geared toward that issue. I believe Al Sharpton is holding a shadow inauguration at the Supreme Court, but last I heard, there were still questions surrounding permits for that area, so I can't assure that it's still happening at that location.

Washington, DC: I read that sticks of any size are not permitted to uphold banners and protest signs. What about foam and plastic poles? Also, should a secret service staff present ID when requesting to go into my purse or bag?

Kadd Stephens: Anything that the cops say can be used as a weapon, will likely not be allowed.

Personally, I would always ask for ID when a cop asks me to do anything.

Clarksburg, West Virginia: Can you speak to the effectiveness of protest by such a broad coalition...do you think that the broad range of interests and ideologies leads to a dilution of the message, and detracts from the ability of the protestors to communicate their ideas?

Kadd Stephens: I don't really agree with that point, mostly because I think that all these issues are essentially branches on one big tree. We can continue tearing off the branches and watching new ones replace them, or we can work to uproot the entire tree and build something that meets our needs.

What I think is more at issue in terms of defeating the goals of activists is that people are so enamored with the "excitement" of mass action scenarios, and averse to the real labor that radical transformation entails. If we could put as much energy, resourcefulness, and human participation into cultivating institutions which serve the needs of real people in our communities, our successes would be much more sustainable, useful, and provide some longevity to our work.
Of course, I think that illegitimate and violent authority needs to be confronted constantly, and examined as to whether or not it serves a collective purpose that provides us with any real meaning -- but that's not all that struggle is about, you know?

Dc: While I am sympathetic to your claim of "respect for human dignity" as a central theme, I absolutely cannot tell what you propose as alternatives to our existing systems. "Stop raping the earth for profit" isn't very helpful. You say that you would protest Gore's inauguration as well. What do want to see instead?

Kadd Stephens: Well, first of all, I think that those who produce the wealth of any given region ought to own it and democratically control and determine how that wealth is distributed, produced, etc. This isn't rocket science. We all grow up in this country hearing about liberty and democracy, and we in turn spit this rhetoric back out when the interests of power and privilege command us to (like when we starve half a million Iraqi children to death under the alleged cause of crippling a dictator we wholeheartedly supported, even after he used chemical weapons on his own people). However, we shrug off this idealism when we set foot in our workplace. End of story. We don't play any meaningful role in the decisions that impact our lives.

I think we're also asking the wrong question when we say something like "what would you want to see instead?" -- to be quite honest, I don't know you. So why would I have any cause to suggest what system should be imposed on you? What makes more sense is for the both of us to get together with our neighbors in DC, and assess our situation. From there, we can figure out ways of collectively meeting our needs, and challenging the institutions and structures that fall short of that. If you'd really like to examine instances where this has happened before, with some degree of success, there are a whole slew of them available. Revolutionary Spain is one really staggering example, particularly the successes of radical labor unions like the CNT and the peasant organizations of 1930's Catalonia. I don't harbor any silly doctrinaire visions of what an ideal society absolutely has to look like. What it looks like is what you and I make it look like -- not what those with the money and the guns impose on us.

Seattle, Washington: Being on a corporate media Web site, what are your responses to their inaccurate portrayals of anarchists as individuals (terrorists, mainly angry white males, punk rockers, thugs, etc), and "direct action" tactics used in protests? Such as destroying a Nike store window is worse than the inhumane treatment of non-US Nike workers or those killed by the same state(s) and police departments that act so outraged by a broken window and political graffiti?

Kadd Stephens: Sure, I think this sort of thing is common knowledge to anyone who examines it for a few seconds. I don't think terrorism is a particularly useful tactic, given that no "militia" or other armed uprising is going to out-gun the US military -- but at the same time, I thought it was really sad that when some desperate Arab bombed a US ship in the middle east, all we could talk about was the handful of Americans who died. And admittedly, those sailors didn't orchestrate the US support for Israel's occupation, so there's no reasonable way to suggest that they at all deserved that fate...but there were only questions of who, what, when -- never why? Why did several relatively innocent young men have to die aboard that ship? Because the US has unequivocally supported an illegitimate and terroristic regime that has driven people to violent acts. That's the real tragedy...or more accurately, the WHOLE tragedy.

We are a heavily propagandized society, and the Washington Post plays just as much a role in that process as any other corporate media outlet. I don't expect much else from them, given the market forces that drive their operation and interests they are thus beholden to. I could scream about that until I'm blue in the face, or I could proactively begin to educate people who to examine this information critically...how to become their OWN media, etc. This is much more useful, sustainable, etc. I'll leave the analysis of corporate media to the Noam Chomsky's of the world (he certainly does a better of job of it, anyway).

Brookeville, MD: Are we going to have a great time on Saturday or what!!??!! I plan on taking the Metro into town and having my own personal protest, and I'm happy to hear so many other individuals are going to be there as well. I'm ready for good, peaceful, American protesting!

Kadd Stephens: Whatever "American protesting" means.

New York, New York: I know the protest march begins leaves Dupont Circle at 11:00am. Do you know the route it will take, and where it will end?

Kadd Stephens: Much of that was still in the works last I heard anything. I would suggest checking www.j20.org

Kirk in Takoma, DC: I see the JAM (and other organizations like it) as a direct outgrowth of the World Bank / IMF protests here, Seattle and Prague and am so excited to see some sort of momentum picking up to address these issues. But as any movement takes root, it changes. I've noticed many who would have scoffed at protesting against the World Bank actively encouraging protests this weekend.

How do you view these changes, and what do they mean for the JAM?

Kadd Stephens: I think that Seattle and whatnot empowered a lot of people, first of all, and showed them that while you can act on this system as one person against an entire machine (by voting), you can also choose NOT to go at it alone, and engage in collective activity which also holds immense power. So, I think that in that sense, a lot more people have become involved as they've examined that, and sorted out their feelings about it.

Furthermore, let's face it -- the liberals are furious about the outcome of this election. And I think that they have every right to be, I just don't think that their approach to the system is only marginally better. So, yeah...you're going to see a lot of people who wouldn't have been caught dead protesting global capitalism protesting the inauguration. I think that's a good thing. This election was an eye-opener for a lot of people, and hopefully we can keep those eyes open.

WDC: Why are you protesting? By this I mean not the reasons you have listed above as to why you want to protest. Instead -- by protesting, what to you hope to gain? Who do you hope to persuade to your way of thinking (certainly you don't expect to convince the President-elect)? Why protest as opposed to circulating petitions or raising funds and buying full-page ads in major papers?

Kadd Stephens: Well, for one -- I live off of about $6-700 a month. I can't afford to give anyone money to take out ads. Furthermore, that would simply be an affirmation of wealth as a means of power, and our planet simply can't sustain every one of its inhabitants accumulating the resources necessary to making such a gluttonous standard of living universal (one that would allow us to take on the wealth of corporations, etc.).

Why not protest? Why not disrupt? Why not throw our bodies in the way of this pogrom? I can't answer those questions. Can you?

Downtown, DC: Regarding protests in general lately: Whatever happened to the gravitas and dignity of the early 1960s civil rights marches?
I too oppose the election of George W. Bush, but the "anarchists" of today who show up regularly at things like World Bank meetings and inaugurations (regardless of who wins) seem to be protesting more to wear their own radicalism on their sleeves. The predictable tactics, puppets and banners are viewed by the bulk of the American people sitting home watching TV as a bunch of spoiled, radical poseurs who basically should get a job. Again, i agree with you on many of the issues, but why not show up wearing suits & ties, and march in quiet dignity like the civil rights marchers - an incredibly powerful image - rather than getting rowdy, vandalizing Starbucks, being confrontational with police? Perhaps it's just that I'm getting old...

Kadd Stephens: I think the tactics of the civil rights movement of the 60's are instructive in many cases, but I also think there's a bit of unwarranted romanticism surrounding them, as well. MLK and Bayard Rustin were teaching people a lot of the same things that groups like the Ruckus Society are teaching people today -- but based on what I've seen living in DC, people of color don't need to be taught how to more effectively get tortured and abused by cops. By forcing cops to drag them from lunch counters, people of color effectively made racism visible. I don't know that the same tactics make things like corporate libertarianism visible, you know? Moreover, anyone who took an elementary history course in this country studied the Boston Tea Party, and understands who celebrated that event is in our culture. But that was property destruction, just like smashing up Starbucks is (whether that tactic was particularly useful in Seattle or not).

The truth of it is that appeals to engaging our dignity are somewhat useless when the system we live under has liquidated that from us since day one. I personally could very easily throw on a suit and go downtown on Saturday and march quietly, and then at the end of the day I could go home to my partner, eat dinner, and go to sleep in my centrally heated apartment. Most of the people who stand to suffer immensely under any administration in this country don't have that to look forward to. They have a much greater stake in actually changing something. I can't honestly rebuke them for their tactics on moral grounds.

When the Germans of the Nazi era stood by and watched as countless people were marched off to gas chambers, they did so civilly. Whether or not that was the responsible thing t do is up to you to decide.

Brooklyn, NY: Have you noticed any suspicious surveillance or suspected surveillance from the police or FBI recently? Do you know if any activists been harassed by police officers yet? This has been a major problem for almost every, major radical protest but I haven't heard anything about this anywhere, including IndyMedia.org.

Kadd Stephens: Yeah, there was one particularly egregious case where an undercover officer showed up to JAM organizing meetings (at the very beginnings of the group) and was making rather suspicious suggestions about actions that the group should engaged in...such as leaving empty boxes on bridges, as decoy bombs, so that the cops would race out and chaos would ensue. Anyone familiar with genuine organizing in this community (radical folks, etc.) knows that not only is such a tactic remote from anything we've ever done, or ever would do....it's stupid. it's not surprising that it took a cop to come up with that. Later on, this fellow was spotted on IMC footage taken at the World Bank/IMF protests, where he and several other officers in uniform randomly attacked a young man, arrested him (with no cause whatsoever...he allegedly uttered an unfriendly word or two) and pepper-sprayed anyone who was watching, including the camera (all of this footage can be seen at www.sinkers.org).
Needless to say, this guy was exposed, and hasn't shown up since. Leave it to the folks with the guns to provoke violence.

DC: If you're against a society ruled by government, but you're also against a society in which the free market is key ... what is your answer? Love? Because love isn't going to put bread on my table.

Kadd Stephens: I think you're confusing government with administration. My roommate and I have an established, organized system through which our living environment is maintained and tasks are administered...but it doesn't amount to a hierarchically organized system of domination and inequality. I think working people are perfectly capable of managing their own affairs and tending to the needs of their communities without constructing arrangements of centralized power and authority.

Moreover, the US and the system it has imposed on the rest of the world is about as rooted in market economics as Jupiter. Adam Smith, the father of market economics, stated very clearly that capital cannot be free/mobile unless labor enjoys that same freedom of movement. So, if you're serious about NAFTA or the FTAA, then under market principles, you would need to open the borders in order for that arrangement to work. I still don't believe it would function, but that's the doctrine you're ostensibly defending. When NAFTA was being drafted, the geniuses behind it "assumed" full employment in all three countries impacted by it. Are you serious? Full employment in the US, much less Mexico? No 3rd grader would buy that. Furthermore, market principles require that the producer bear the costs of his/her product, and that externalizing these costs creates inefficiency and renders the market system dysfunctional. So, all those government subsidies to Boeing and McDonnell Douglas for the development of high-tech industries (through military development, which is later put on the market) violate market principles. This says nothing of the way in which corporations like Unocal externalize labor costs by having a military regime provide slave labor to build their pipelines (as in the case of Burma), or the way in which countless capitalists externalize costs by wrecking the environment. All of this violates market principles. So, let's not pretend, ok?

Ultimately, the market system requires that a certain segment of the population be resigned to such abject poverty that they can barely live, as a means of keeping workers somewhat insecure and deterring them from asking for "too much". This is called the Surplus Labor Class, which we began to address in 1935 by enacting the Social Security system (i.e. the welfare state). Since we've effectively dismantled this system, we now deal with it by incarcerating more people per capita than any other country on the planet, most of whom are people of color. With the privatization of this process (as the Corrections Corporation of America is doing), we have begun extracting wealth by incarcerating the domestically colonized sectors of our population, rather than simply selling them on the auction block as in the days of the slave trade. This is the system you're defending? This is the blessing of the market economy? No thanks.

There are alternatives to market economics, such as the Participatory Economics Model, developed by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. They are certainly worthy of consideration. But I'm not going to tell anyone how I would run their lives, because I'm not interested in anyone having that power other than themselves. It's not about replacing domination with domination. It's about transitioning toward genuine democracy and an equality of opportunity that doesn't resign the losers to starvation and death.

LA, CA: Will there be a protest site in LA?

Kadd Stephens: I've heard mention of teach-ins and workshops, but I can't give you anything concrete, because I frankly haven't had the time to really look into it. My suggestion would be to check out www.indymedia.org and looking at the LA section.

washingtonpost.com: Thanks for joining us today. Beyond Saturday's protests, what's next for JAM?

Kadd Stephens: There's really no telling. I know that the group plans on doing work beyond this weekend, and that we're not going to slow down. There are plans to conduct education and direct resistance to the FTAA meetings in April in Quebec and locally, and certainly the World Bank/IMF meetings here this fall will be a major target of dissent. Without question, local issues such as DC democracy are high on the group's agenda, as well. Rest assured, we're not going away.