Is firebombing a bank an acceptable tactic?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/is-firebombing-a-bank-an-acceptable-tactic/




While it is important first of all to recognize the high level of class consciousness that would allow such a worker to put the blame on the government, we still have not heard that much from the anarchists themselves. They are in something of a quandary it would appear. While they certainly would not want to be blamed for the death of innocent workers, they have trumpeted such tactics in the past.

[...]

So if a firebomb accidentally kills three workers, it’s okay? What a bunch of assholes.

Given such a stupid and adventurist orientation, we can certainly expect the cops to infiltrate the anarchist movement in order to propose ever more “bold” tactics that will result in the injuries or deaths of innocent bystanders. The bourgeoisie does not give a shit about such “collateral damage” as long as the provocation results in the further isolation of the ultralefts.

[...]

I also saw how the cops infiltrated ultraleft groups with the same intention as they have today in Greece, namely to encourage tactics that will only backfire and isolate the left as a whole.

I thought I had seen the end of such stupidity as the 80s trod its weary way into the 90s. But as the “oughts” began, you saw a new spasm of anarchism. In 1999, the black bloc showed up at Seattle and set a precedent for “anti-globalization” protests that would be repeated over and over. During a massive peaceful demonstration, the black bloc and its friends would stage an assault on some stupid fence or building in order to demonstrate how rrrrevolutionary they really were. If the cops used this action as a pretext to tear gas or beat the other demonstrators, that was no big deal to them. Hearkening back to Bakunin, they believe that the bold action of a dedicated minority could bring communism or who knows what. I know that sounds stupid but that’s what they believed. Essentially that is what we are dealing with in Greece but on a much larger scale.



Perhaps I overreacted to hooliganism masquerading as "anarchism" (the other anarchist tendencies being Utopian, Lifestylist, Insurrectionist, Syndicalist, and Platformist), but what is your solution towards not giving cover to those who break glass windows of small shops just to satisfy their testosterone?

[CChocobo]

I think personally feel that most anarchists need to focus more on their working class roots, and how to better reach out to our working class comrades. If you look at the anarchist movement in Spain from the late 1800's all the way up through the Spanish Civil War, you'll see that they really did reach out to fellow working class, and had a huge following at that time. Where as now days some anarchists favor insurrection. (Not all of course, but some do) and i think that's where you have divisions among us anarchists. But at the same time i think some see it as a way for them to fight back in the current situation, knowing that revolution isn't going to happen anytime soon, they still feel obligated to take actions where they see they can. At least that's how i see it. I don't condemn them, but i do realize it's not going to do a whole lot to get working class involved in the movememnt, and sometimes can lead to repercussions from the state. I think really we need to focus on getting our ideas, out there to people who may not know what anarchism stands for.

I don't think we should do anything in terms of "stopping" or beating up other anarchists who favor insurrection. I don't see it as doing good, but i'm not going to force my views of anarchism down their throat, and make them follow "my" rules.
I think it comes down to what kind of anarchists are gonna be there? If you know most of them are more on the insurrectionary fringe then distance yourself from them, if you know they're anarchists who are participating in your demo, or whatever but they're not there to stir up trouble then by all means let them be welcomed into the demo in solidarity. I don't really have any other ideas at the moment. I don't think it should be that hard, i've worked together with comrades who were communists

[FreeFocus]

Insurrectionist anarchism is certainly legitimate. It isn't "hooliganism." A political orientation can only be described as hooliganism when it doesn't have a theoretical foundation and simply engages in hellraising for, well, the hell of it. You can disagree about tactics and strategy, but black blocs and fighting in the street have their place in movements and resistance.

To respond to the initial question, firebombing a bank might be an acceptable tactic. It depends on whether or not innocent people will be killed or harmed (knowingly, or knowing the probability of it happening is high).

[CChocobo]

Insurrectionist anarchism is certainly legitimate. It isn't "hooliganism." A political orientation can only be described as hooliganism when it doesn't have a theoretical foundation and simply engages in hellraising for, well, the hell of it. You can disagree about tactics and strategy, but black blocs and fighting in the street have their place in movements and resistance.

To respond to the initial question, firebombing a bank might be an acceptable tactic. It depends on whether or not innocent people will be killed or harmed (knowingly, or knowing the probability of it happening is high).

Yes i agree with your point here that street fighting has it's place in movements. The only harm i see in concentrating mostly on street fighting is that at the same time you're not extending your goals, and views to other comrades who aren't too sure what anarchism is, causing certain parties to condemn anarchists as hooligans (like the stalinist KKE in Greece) and do things to undermine any resistance movement that anarchists take. At the same time we can't just limit ourselves to standing around waving signs and placards.

[Red Radical]

I agree that violence isnt a favored method but if that is the cost to raise awareness of class war then i think its legitimate strategy as long as we are given the chance by the O so courteous media (which i know will never happen) to say our part. Until the day that happens our tactics will always be viewed as "hooligan like". there is no act such as but not limited to firebombing a bank that will aid the cause but at the same time prostesting and being a bunch of pussies wont help us either.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Banks should not exist. they are always an appropriate target

[Die Neue Zeit]

Workers’ defence (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1003938)



For self-defence and against anarchistic violence



A less encouraging aspect of last week’s Greek general strike was the violence on an accompanying demonstration, which eventually saw three people die of smoke inhalation after a bank was firebombed in Athens. The incident has largely been blamed on radical ‘youth’ elements of the protests, although we should not necessarily take that accusation as good coin.

Whoever threw the fateful petrol bomb may not have known that the bank was occupied, or that the building had only a handful of fire extinguishers to fight a conflagration (as opposed to enormous amounts of flammable material), or that nobody on site had been trained to manage such an emergency. Many would not have expected people to be working in the bank, as such attacks are not uncommon on recent large demonstrations in Greece, and it is more usual for banks to bring down the shutters if they are on the route. All these things are the responsibility of the bank’s owners, who apparently have a bad health and safety reputation even among their competitors.

As we have noted, meanwhile, the identity of the individuals responsible, and their political affiliations, is not certain at this point. A worrying phenomenon in recent Greek history - but the oldest trick in the book where capitalism, in however limited a way, is on the defensive - is for state agencies or far-right groups to execute these kinds of attack. For the far right they are ostensibly carried out as part of their own political programme (the old equation of high finance with Jewry, among other things), but in reality they are directed against the left. Far-rightists certainly were present on the protest, and were getting unruly in the immediate vicinity of the crime. This seems to be the interpretation of the KKE, which refers to the deaths consistently as a “provocation”.

That this argument arises at all, however - whether this outrage is a ‘sincere’ act of anti-capitalist protest or a sinister provocation - indicates the effects of such events on the movement as a whole. They are severely damaging, giving the right wing an excuse to excoriate protestors and stake a claim to the moral high ground (given the role of the police, an utterly hypocritical claim). It makes it easier for the state to claim ‘extraordinary’ repressive powers (as Papandreou currently intends to, in order to fight the strike wave).

Workers engaged in this level of struggle need their own defence corps, to steward protests and pickets, and to defend them from attacks by police and fascist goons. Yet we need also to defend ourselves from indiscipline and dangerous stunts. The strength of the working class lies not in its ability to generate random bomb attacks, but in its organisation - that is the difference between ourselves as a class capable of imposing an agenda on society and ourselves as a set of individuals in possession only of our ability to toil.

These aimless firebomb ‘spectaculars’ - not so much anarchistic as nihilistic in character - stem from a disaffection with mass organisation, which is thoroughly understandable, given the state of the working class movement over the last few decades; an unappetising choice between the crippled ‘official’ parties and myriad dogmatic sects. It is a dissatisfaction which manifests itself equally in the fetishism of ‘non-violent direct action’ and its more sinister guerrilla-fantasist cousin. The former is summed up in Douglas Adams’s verdict of the human race - “mostly harmless.” At worst, the latter’s contribution to the movement is indistinguishable from the activity of state or fascist provocateurs. Only serious political organisation can give meaning to ‘direct actions’ or violent confrontation (in a violent world, sadly necessary).

Needless to say, any authoritarian inroads into the rights of self-organisation in Greece arising from this outrage should be vociferously opposed - equally, however, the argument for self-defence and against anarchistic violence must be won within the movement itself.

[revolution inaction]

Perhaps I overreacted to hooliganism masquerading as "anarchism" (the other anarchist tendencies being Utopian, Lifestylist, Insurrectionist, Syndicalist, and Platformist),

this makes no sense




but what is your solution towards not giving cover to those who break glass windows of small shops just to satisfy their testosterone?

if people want to smash windows and set fire to banks i don't care so long as they check they are empty first, and no one pretends there is anything revolutionary about it

[A Proletarian Manifesto]

Banks should not exist. they are always an appropriate target

You beat me to it.

[BOZG]

This might be a crazy idea now, but maybe it would be far more productive to go and have a chat with the few hundred thousand workers on these demonstrations than waste your time firebombing buildings.

But heaven forbid that you'd orientate towards the working class when you can take a stand against the man!

[chegitz guevara]

The building is just a building. Burning the bank down does nothing to the bank, as its assets are either in a fireproof safe or are electronic, and thus invulnerable to fire. Burning buildings is danger to people and bad for the environment.

But at least you'll have a good orgasm when you masturbate to your memories of burning it.

[FSL]

The building is just a building. Burning the bank down does nothing to the bank, as its assets are either in a fireproof safe or are electronic, and thus invulnerable to fire. Burning buildings is danger to people and bad for the environment.

But at least you'll have a good orgasm when you masturbate to your memories of burning it.

No need to masturbate to mere memories! Now with Youtube we can see our struggle unfold whenever we want!


"Wooooo, fiiiiire!"

[KC]

It seems that ideology has trumped practicality. Most of those that agree or sympathize somewhat claim that ideologically it makes sense. However, that's really a strange question to ask in isolation. I think a more realistic question would be: what are the beneficial outcomes?

Sure it's nice to sloganeer and say that "banks are always targets" and that they "should not exist" but that does more to avoid the actual question than anything. What comes out of firebombing a bank? What are the benefits?

This ideological disconnect from reality is commonly why most Marxists attack anarchists. Maybe banks really should "not exist," but what does firebombing them have to do with that? Finally, how does firebombing a bank contribute towards making banks "not exist"? Obviously the individual bank itself is destroyed but that doesn't do anything to destroy the banking system which brings about banks, rendering such an act pointless if we are to judge based on the goal of doing away with banks.

It's completely avoiding the question.

[Foldered]

Firebombing a bank as a symbolic gesture to say banks "should not exist;" that does make sense to me. Killing workers as a result does not make sense to me; they don't deserve to die for the sake a symbolic gesture.

[Agnapostate]

What exactly does ostensibly useless violence and destruction accomplish? Worse, what does openly useless murder accomplish? If conducted by anarchists, such acts only further the widespread misconception that anarchism is simply advocacy of chaos and disorder, with all institutions of social organization being assaulted. Now, bank robbery for the specific purpose of financing socialist endeavors is certainly morally acceptable, in my view, and declarations of this aim would actually benefit anarchism, since it would raise public awareness of its actual precepts.

[Red Radical]

i do believe that a bank bombing is more symbolic and it is saying to the banking system hey you are full of corruption and disregard for the people who have money or boxes of stored things in it and we dont want you around anymore. so i think a bank is indeed an acceptable tactic

[Agnapostate]

i do believe that a bank bombing is more symbolic

When committed by self-described anarchists, it is symbolic of adherence to promotion of destruction, and nothing more. If a Communist Party were to commit such an act, perhaps that would be different.

[KC]

Okay, so what does a symbolic act accomplish, even if we were talking about such a case?

[chegitz guevara]

Burning a bank is not an attack on capital.

[Ocean Seal]

The best way to hurt the bank is to not work for it, to not take loans from it, not to kill the workers who aren't the ones earning million dollar bonuses. If the anarchists want to bomb a building they should first make sure that there are no innocent people in it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I should remind the posters who have posted here but not in earlier Greece threads why I posted this:


Perhaps I overreacted to hooliganism masquerading as "anarchism" (the other anarchist tendencies being Utopian, Lifestylist, Insurrectionist, Syndicalist, and Platformist), but what is your solution towards not giving cover to those who break glass windows of small shops just to satisfy their testosterone?

Because of my *very* controversial but perhaps overly emotional post here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-party-greece-t134751/index.html?p=1741875

[The Vegan Marxist]

Just blow the fuckers up! Make sure there's no one inside & blow them up! Go "Fight Club" on the banks' asses! (I know, a simplistic statement, but do you disagree?)

[KC]

Just blow the fuckers up! Make sure there's no one inside & blow them up! Go "Fight Club" on the banks' asses! (I know, a simplistic statement, but do you disagree?)

Yes, of course I disagree. Again, what purpose does it serve?

Or are you being sarcastic?

[The Gallant Gallstone]

Firebombing a bank is not an acceptable tactic. Planning, organizing or coordinating a firebombing is a waste of time.

If someone gets frustrated and firebombs a building, I'm not going to spend years mourning the loss of the institution, but shouldn't we be confronting the elite instead of burning buildings and potentially incinerating fellow workers?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Firebombing a bank is not an acceptable tactic. Planning, organizing or coordinating a firebombing is a waste of time.

If someone gets frustrated and firebombs a building, I'm not going to spend years mourning the loss of the institution, but shouldn't we be confronting the elite instead of burning buildings and potentially incinerating fellow workers?

It would depend on what message is trying to be shown, wouldn't it?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Terrorism (bombing buildings, assasinations, suicide bombings) are not the Marxist method.

1.) They divide the working class.Since exploitation and oppression is often played out along communal lines, these tactics can create cycles of sectarian violence lasting generations.

2.) They provide rationale for increased state repression.

3.) Innocent people die.

4. ) Terrorism does not, cannot, accomplish anything. From Alexander Berkman to the Rote Armee Fraktion, these tactics, by themselves, have accomplished nothing. Terroristic tactics can have a place as a small part of an overall revolutionary strategy, but we're very far from this now.

This dude may not be super popular here but this is definitely worth reading

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/index.htm

[Red Radical]

When committed by self-described anarchists, it is symbolic of adherence to promotion of destruction, and nothing more. If a Communist Party were to commit such an act, perhaps that would be different.

so are you saying that because anarchists do its wrong or that if communists so it then its ok even if it injures innocent people ?

[Red Radical]

Just blow the fuckers up! Make sure there's no one inside & blow them up! Go "Fight Club" on the banks' asses! (I know, a simplistic statement, but do you disagree?)


I agree with you
we have established its wrong to hurt innocent people and that's all everyone keeps saying and as long as no innocent people will be hurt blow up what ever you want

[Barry Lyndon]

I don't know what all this Marxist-anarchists rancour is about.

I'm a Marxist and I'm fine with burning those banks to the ground, as long as no one gets hurt. I'm with the anarchists in Greece all the way on this.
It's a perfectly pragmatic tactic, it makes it more difficult for the capitalist system to function.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

This isn't a Marxist vs anarchist thing. For Marxists, anarchists, any revolutionary communists, the most important vehicle of social change is the working class. Any action is worthwhile only in so far as it increases class consciousness. Protests, strikes, similar mass actions can contribute to this.

Does molotoving a bank raise the level of class consciousness?

I'm certainly no fan of banks or any other form of private property. Admittedly part of me felt emotionally gratified, hearing of other recent bombings though out Greece.What exactly does this accomplish though?

Did the Weather Underground, the Rote Armee Fraktion, the Brigatte Rosse overthrow capitalism? Its still here 40 years later.

Its a matter of understanding history, thinking and using correct strategy and tactics, no matter what tendency one identifies with.A couple of guys with bottles, rags, and kerosene won't smash capitalism. The working class will.

[piet11111]

With all the lessons from the past its a shame that still some of us resort to propaganda of the deed (though i suspect it was state agents that did this particular firebombing)

[Coggeh]

With all the lessons from the past its a shame that still some of us resort to propaganda of the deed (though i suspect it was state agents that did this particular firebombing)

The very possibility that it was shows just how backwards some anarchist tactics are . Why would you support the same tactics the state uses to throw the real workers movement into disarray ?


I don't know what all this Marxist-anarchists rancour is about.

I'm a Marxist and I'm fine with burning those banks to the ground, as long as no one gets hurt. I'm with the anarchists in Greece all the way on this.
It's a perfectly pragmatic tactic, it makes it more difficult for the capitalist system to function.

Its an idiotic tactic and anyone who supposes themselves a marxist should know just how reactionary such tactics can be. Because of this instead of talking about the tens of thousands of protesters fighting against cuts we are talking about the actions of a group of petit individualists who actually believe you can make any difference by throwing petrol bombs other than actually damaging the workers movement.

[Barry Lyndon]

Its an idiotic tactic and anyone who supposes themselves a marxist should know just how reactionary such tactics can be. Because of this instead of talking about the tens of thousands of protesters fighting against cuts we are talking about the actions of a group of petit individualists who actually believe you can make any difference by throwing petrol bombs other than actually damaging the workers movement.

I think you should wonder why you 'suppose' yourself a Marxist when you waste time and energy defending capitalist property rights.
Of course such attacks are no substitute for a workers movement. But I have no problem with them being in conjunction with a workers movement.

[piet11111]

I think you should wonder why you 'suppose' yourself a Marxist when you waste time and energy defending capitalist property rights.
Of course such attacks are no substitute for a workers movement. But I have no problem with them being in conjunction with a workers movement.

Because such actions do nothing but scare away the moderate masses that consider firebombing as going to far.
And because it turned into such a FUBAR situation the media are having a field day.

At no point in our history has individual acts of the deed ever done anything but help consolidate the state and justify the oppression against us.
Because of this we need to oppose all actions like this no matter if we sympathize with the people that commit them.

[Wanted Man]

I think you should wonder why you 'suppose' yourself a Marxist when you waste time and energy defending capitalist property rights.
Of course such attacks are no substitute for a workers movement. But I have no problem with them being in conjunction with a workers movement.

He's not defending property rights. It takes a significant amount of distortion to get that impression from Coggeh's post. We don't denounce terrorism because we believe the bankers are entitled to their banks, but because it is a tactic that has always been detrimental to class struggle, and this can also be seen today. In any case, bombing a bank does not damage finance at all, and if things quiet down, a new bank will be built.

The claim about "defending property rights" does not detract from Coggeh's arguments at all. It certainly appears that terrorist actions by "radicals" are sometimes almost completely indistinguishable from the ones committed by the state's agents.

Also, when are terrorist actions ever "in conjunction" with class struggle? There isn't any indication of that being the case here.

[Devrim]

I should remind the posters who have posted here but not in earlier Greece threads why I posted this:

Because of my *very* controversial but perhaps overly emotional post here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-party-greece-t134751/index.html?p=1741875

This is what the post says:


That raises a theoretical question: should revolutionary demonstrators isolate Black Bloc hooligans and practically hand them over to the cops?

I agree with those who think that the anarchists' methods offer no way forward for the working class. I refuse to sit down and discuss it though with those who advocate 'turning demonstrators over to the cops'.

Advocating 'touting' is not a 'theoretical question' as Jacob puts it. It puts him outside of any discussion amongst revolutionary socialists.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

I never said to hand over Insurrectionists (who are *not* hooligans) over to the cops. I actually sympathize with what they are doing since, despite their incorrect strategies and tactics, they've got serious politics.

What you are essentially saying (as a LIAR, I might add) is that I'm keen on handing over guys like Bakunin (however wrong he was on Mobilize-the-Masses-into-ACTION and more broadly the Mass Strike strategy) over to the cops back in the 19th century.

You are also saying again "turning demonstrators over to the cops," which is NOT what I said! :cursing:

It was written somewhere that Greece has, relative to the rest of southern Europe and even Europe as a whole, a disproportionately large number of "petit-bourgeois" elements. Truckers who own their own trucks, for example, don't like higher retirement ages or higher sales taxes.

With this demographic consideration and severe lack of a so-called "Industrial" base, is it possible for Greece to have a people's war and other "petit-bourgeois" tactics?

[bcbm]

I never said to hand over Insurrectionists (who are *not* hooligans) over to the cops. I actually sympathize with what they are doing since, despite their incorrect strategies and tactics, they've got serious politics.

but handing over "hooligans" is fine and you can magically tell the difference on a chaotic demonstration and know who to isolate and hand over to the pigs? fuck off

[revolution inaction]

I never said to hand over Insurrectionists (who are *not* hooligans) over to the cops. I actually sympathize with what they are doing since, despite their incorrect strategies and tactics, they've got serious politics.

What you are essentially saying (as a LIAR, I might add) is that I'm keen on handing over guys like Bakunin (however wrong he was on Mobilize-the-Masses-into-ACTION and more broadly the Mass Strike strategy) over to the cops back in the 19th century.

You are also saying again "turning demonstrators over to the cops," which is NOT what I said! :cursing:

It was written somewhere that Greece has, relative to the rest of southern Europe and even Europe as a whole, a disproportionately large number of "petit-bourgeois" elements. Truckers who own their own trucks, for example, don't like higher retirement ages or higher sales taxes.

With this demographic consideration and severe lack of a so-called "Industrial" base, is it possible for Greece to have a people's war and other "petit-bourgeois" tactics?

"Black Bloc hooligans" are demonstrators

Truckers who own there own truck are generally no more "petit-bougeois" then the typical agency worker who is declared self employed for the convenience of there bosses

[Os Cangaceiros]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/index.htm

I knew that it was only a matter of time before someone posted that.

[Stand Your Ground]

Agree they are a good target, but maybe we should keep em standing, they'd make good housing.

[piet11111]

I knew that it was only a matter of time before someone posted that.

I was considering it but decided it should not be necessary to post as everyone should have read that already.

[Die Neue Zeit]

but handing over "hooligans" is fine and you can magically tell the difference on a chaotic demonstration and know who to isolate and hand over to the pigs? fuck off

I never said anything extensive about hooligans in this thread. The OP was a form of self-criticism. :confused:

[bcbm]

do you think "hooligans" should be handed over to the police?

[piet11111]

do you think "hooligans" should be handed over to the police?

Obviously not but they should be confronted and corrected to prevent them from damaging the movement.

[Psy]

do you think "hooligans" should be handed over to the police?
No but this shows the point of a revolutionary army, since a confrontation with the state at this level would be far more effective with military discipline and unified strategies and tactics so everyone is basically on the same page when it comes to the goals in the conflict.

A revolutionary army could have taken the hooligans into custody, rescue the bank workers, treat their injuries and put out the burning bank all on their own thus no need to let emergency workers into the area as the revolutionary army would be organized enough to actually use labor tactically especially a revolutionary army making use of radios to mobilize skilled workers (like fighter fighters and medics) where they are needed.

[Qayin]

A revolutionary army could have taken the hooligans into custody, rescue the bank workers, treat their injuries and put out the burning bank all on their own thus no need to let emergency workers into the area as the revolutionary army would be organized enough to actually use labor tactically especially a revolutionary army making use of radios to mobilize skilled workers (like fighter fighters and medics) where they are needed. We don't need a damn Peoples War to manage the struggle. Yeah a Rev Army is going to arrest there own comrades
There's a reason we don't trust the old left anymore, this type of thinking is why.
The deaths were a mistake.
http://www.occupiedlondon.org/blog/2010/05/12/may-5th-the-anarchists-speak-out/



Obviously not but they should be confronted and corrected to prevent them from damaging the movement. You do know direct action against the pigs and property of the State and Capitals
institutions has literally been ongoing since the 1970's
by Anarchists/Militant Marxists? Don't manage the movement!
We all want the same things and we need a diversity of tactics. Protests,Strikes,
non-violent civil disobedience, Direct Action, hell even the urban guerrillas
who risk there lives fighting all have a roll to play we all want the same things.
We want to abolish capital and improve Human life.

My only criticism of "terrorist" urban guerrillas is its done in the dark and people cant put it in context with the movement as opposed to a social insurrection
that's in the streets and anybody can join in, a true democratic manor of pressing the attack.

Damn right its an acceptable tactic this is a class war.

"We are the blood of the countless murdered. And we are the seeds of the new world to come. The daylight of a new age shines in our eyes and the voice of true freedom sings in our hearts. Ours is the vision of a beautiful new dawn and yours is the nightmare we will wage this war on. So let the fires of justice burn away this plague! Let the rain cleanse this world and let the end come!"
7 Generations - Cauterize

[BOZG]

We don't need a damn Peoples War to manage the struggle. Yeah a Rev Army is going to arrest there own comrades
There's a reason we don't trust the old left anymore, this type of thinking is why.
The deaths were a mistake.
http://www.occupiedlondon.org/blog/2010/05/12/may-5th-the-anarchists-speak-out/


You do know direct action against the pigs and property of the State and Capitals
institutions has literally been ongoing since the 1970's
by Anarchists/Militant Marxists? Don't manage the movement!
We all want the same things and we need a diversity of tactics. Protests,Strikes,
non-violent civil disobedience, Direct Action, hell even the urban guerrillas
who risk there lives fighting all have a roll to play we all want the same things.
We want to abolish capital and improve Human life.

My only criticism of "terrorist" urban guerrillas is its done in the dark and people cant put it in context with the movement as opposed to a social insurrection
that's in the streets and anybody can join in, a true democratic manor of pressing the attack.

Damn right its an acceptable tactic this is a class war.

"We are the blood of the countless murdered. And we are the seeds of the new world to come. The daylight of a new age shines in our eyes and the voice of true freedom sings in our hearts. Ours is the vision of a beautiful new dawn and yours is the nightmare we will wage this war on. So let the fires of justice burn away this plague! Let the rain cleanse this world and let the end come!"
7 Generations - Cauterize



You keep ranting about how we need this and that but you've yet to point out how individual terrorism and guerrilla warfare raise class consciousness and how exactly they challenge capitalism.

[RED DAVE]

My only criticism of "terrorist" urban guerrillas is its done in the dark and people cant put it in context with the movement as opposed to a social insurrection that's in the streets and anybody can join in, a true democratic manor of pressing the attack.This is basically the problem. A demonsrtation is not a collective orgasm, nor is it a soccer game: it is a hopefully a coordinated action, not a bunch of fools who refuse to submit to democratic discipline.

Anyone who defends what happened has to look at what the effect was: suddenly the government and corporations, guilty of countless murders, are off the hook, and the terrorist acts become the focus. We can say that this is a result of false consciousness, etc., and that would be true. But we can't get away from the invariable results of this kind of act: a derailing of the impetus of the demonstations.

RED DAVE

[BOZG]

I was considering it but decided it should not be necessary to post as everyone should have read that already.

I'm wondering whether it was these two pamphlets that were supposed to be linked rather than Terrorism and Communism which deals with the early days of the Soviet State.

The Bankruptcy of Individual Terrorism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1909/xx/tia09.htm)

Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1911/11/tia09.htm)

[Psy]

We don't need a damn Peoples War to manage the struggle. Yeah a Rev Army is going to arrest there own comrades

There is difference between arrest and taking into custody. Taking into custody simply means detaining the hooligans so the revolutionary army can performs its duties without the counterproductive of terrorists.

You don't win wars by indiscriminately attacking targets, you win wars through organized force that is coordinated towards the goal of the war for your side.

[Qayin]

You keep ranting about how we need this and that but you've yet to point out how individual terrorism and guerrilla warfare raise class consciousness and how exactly they challenge capitalism.
I'm not exactly ranting. If I was a trot denouncing(ranting)about this you would have clicked thanks !. Its subjective.

I already put my thoughts on guerrillas I do have problems with them(who happen to also be Marxists) and terrorism in general isn't good as its done in the dark. I met with the Void network from Greece when they were on there book tour for We are an image from the future they had a lot of criticisms for there countries armed militants but they wont denounce them because as anarchists we don't have vested interests in controlling this movement. We are for all different types of resistances. Some will Strike and organize the workers, some will blow up a cop station.



The Bankruptcy of Individual Terrorism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1909/xx/tia09.htm)

Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1911/11/tia09.htm)
Written in the early 20th century from a man with an ideology that failed.
Trotskyism is an impoverished ideology, no trot party is a threat to the establishment even the "Anti-Revisionists" know this when they see the maoists fighting in the third world. Why use a marxist argument against people who arn't purely marxist? We take the criticism of capitalism,historical materialism, and class theory and we are good, we social anarchists are not you.


This is basically the problem. A demonsrtation is not a collective orgasm, nor is it a soccer game: it is a hopefully a coordinated action, not a bunch of fools who refuse to submit to democratic discipline.
Collective orgasm is a nice way to demean anybody thinking outside the box. Im sure the month long insurrection of December 2008 was just a collective orgasm. Democratic discipline isn't even a real term, the people who discipline don't share the power with all as what democracy is supposed to be. Its an oxymoron.


Anyone who defends what happened has to look at what the effect was: suddenly the government and corporations, guilty of countless murders, are off the hook, and the terrorist acts become the focus. We can say that this is a result of false consciousness, etc., and that would be true. But we can't get away from the invariable results of this kind of act: a derailing of the impetus of the demonstations.
Why aren't we seeing that? Protests continue and anarchists are still leading most of them. They are not off the hook, after the IMF deal they are hated more then ever.


There is difference between arrest and taking into custody. Taking into custody simply means detaining the hooligans so the revolutionary army can performs its duties without the counterproductive of terrorists.
There is no revolutionary army. There's something real going on there and it doesn't need movement controllers to "detain hooligans".


You don't win wars by indiscriminately attacking targets, you win wars through organized force that is coordinated towards the goal of the war for your side.
If the whole country burns in a fashion that will make December 2008 look like childs play we shall see who wins this "war"

[bcbm]

Obviously not but they should be confronted and corrected to prevent them from damaging the movement.

this assumes any/all "hooligan" elements would be receptive, which is a stretch, especially in any actual crisis situation.


No but this shows the point of a revolutionary army, since a confrontation with the state at this level would be far more effective with military discipline and unified strategies and tactics so everyone is basically on the same page when it comes to the goals in the conflict.

A revolutionary army could have taken the hooligans into custody, rescue the bank workers, treat their injuries and put out the burning bank all on their own thus no need to let emergency workers into the area as the revolutionary army would be organized enough to actually use labor tactically especially a revolutionary army making use of radios to mobilize skilled workers (like fighter fighters and medics) where they are needed.

fap fap fap fap fap


This is basically the problem. A demonsrtation is not a collective orgasm,

depends on the demonstration.


Anyone who defends what happened has to look at what the effect was: suddenly the government and corporations, guilty of countless murders, are off the hook, and the terrorist acts become the focus. We can say that this is a result of false consciousness, etc., and that would be true. But we can't get away from the invariable results of this kind of act: a derailing of the impetus of the demonstations.

this immediately leads us to a larger problem, which is that if the movement can be derailed by these sort of violent acts then the state will not hesitate to start murdering workers in the name of anarchism/communism and try to create a backlash. i'd be quite surprised if there wasn't a gladio-like force prepared to go into greece and begin their own strategy of tension.


You don't win wars by indiscriminately attacking targets, you win wars through organized force that is coordinated towards the goal of the war for your side.

the revolution is (still) not a war.

[Psy]

.
Collective orgasm is a nice way to demean anybody thinking outside the box. Im sure the month long insurrection of December 2008 was just a collective orgasm. Democratic discipline isn't even a real term, the people who discipline don't share the power with all as what democracy is supposed to be. Its an oxymoron.

Okay what if there was a revolutionary army? How would burning the bank that would have forced the revolutionary army to deploy resources to rescue the trap bank workers workers (as they are also part of the proletariat they would be sworn to protect), deal with injuries and fight the fire, have helped the revolutionary defeat the police? Answer it would not have, the fire bombing the bank would be the equivalent of a insurgency hindering the operations of revolutionary army as it would be putting workers at risk unnecessarily cleaning up the mess of the terrorists plus the workers in the bank.

This is the point of discipline on a battlefield, so we don't just have the proletariat fighting itself.



There is no revolutionary army. There's something real going on there and it doesn't need movement controllers to "detain hooligans".

The bombing of the bank proves otherwise since the fire bombing of the bank was a massive case of intentional friendly fire thus there was a need for revolutionary army to protect the proletariat in the bank from hostile forces.



If the whole country burns in a fashion that will make December 2008 look like childs play we shall see who wins this "war"

And then what? Without a revolutionary army you'd have have something like the Detroit riot of 1967 where everything fucked as the proletariat turns on even itself and there is no organize force to defend against the inevitable counter-attack by the bourgeoisie armed forces.

What the hell do you think will happen in Greece once the tanks start rolling in? Do you think a disorganized force would be of any match to the Greek army?

[Psy]

fap fap fap fap fap

Great so you think it is a fantasy for us to even the organization required to fight a god dam fire, rescue trapped workers and treat the injured.

If you think so badly of our organization skills how the hell do you think the proletariat can run any society?

[bcbm]

Great so you think it is a fantasy for us to even the organization required to fight a god dam fire, rescue trapped workers and treat the injured.


i think it is a fantasy to imagine a "revolutionary army" that would be active on the streets of greece and have the coordination and skills necessary to do that, yes.


If you think so badly of our organization skills how the hell do you think the proletariat can run any society?

you seem to falsely construing a rejection of militarism and masturbatory nonsense with an attack on organization. i firmly believe we can reorganize the whole of society to be suited to human needs, but i don't think that will be achieved through the creation of armies.

[Psy]

i think it is a fantasy to imagine a "revolutionary army" that would be active on the streets of greece and have the coordination and skills necessary to do that, yes.

Why? Dealing with a firebombed bank is actually pretty mundane for a army especially one that can pull on the skills of the entire local workforce.

And we had fairly organized and competent armies in the Spanish civil-war the problem actually was the different revolutionary armies were not working together for obvious reasons.

To me the lessons from the Spanish civil-war is that we need units to be working together more not have them divided and fighting against each other then in the Spanish civil-war.



you seem to falsely construing a rejection of militarism and masturbatory nonsense with an attack on organization. i firmly believe we can reorganize the whole of society to be suited to human needs, but i don't think that will be achieved through the creation of armies.

Why? The bourgeoisie has armies used armies against us so what is wrong with us using armies against them or even to defend ourselves?

[nuisance]

Wow, this thread really highlights the bankruptcy of leftist thought and secures it firmly in the realms of theortical and historical masterbation. All this talk of managing social disruption originating from a ridiculous deterministic view point of revolutionary change really makes the mind boggle. Are you truly that naive as to think that a revolutionary army is going to suddenly appear on the streets of Greece and wipe away the existing social order? Also, what right do these allegedly legitimate parties have to restrain the insurrectionists, or as some like to call hooligans, from fulfilling their aims if both are fighting with all tools available in their respective arsenals?
Thankyou for demostrating why you are also the enemy and of no help to creating a free society.

[bcbm]

Why? Dealing with a firebombed bank is actually pretty mundane for a army especially one that can pull on the skills of the entire local workforce.

you're talking about a revolutionary army marching through the streets of the biggest city in greece. think for a second.


Why? The bourgeoisie has armies used armies against us so what is wrong with us using armies against them or even to defend ourselves?

because the struggle for communism is not a military struggle that can be solved on the battlefield by armed specialists, it is a social struggle where the battlefield is our everyday lives, our neighborhoods, our workplaces, our relationships with others and so our power comes from our ability to change these territories and relationships and remove the ruling class from our existence. this may require arms (though we should avoid this as much as possible), but not as a traditional military force.

[Charles Xavier]

Being an insurrectionist when there is no insurrection is stupid.

[bcbm]

being a revolutionary when there is no revolution...

[Psy]

Wow, this thread really highlights the bankruptcy of leftist thought and secures it firmly in the realms of theortical and historical masterbation. All this talk of managing social disruption originating from a ridiculous deterministic view point of revolutionary change really makes the mind boggle. Are you truly that naive as to think that a revolutionary army is going to suddenly appear on the streets of Greece and wipe away the existing social order?

Nope but revolutionary armies have formed quickly in the past.



Also, what right do these allegedly legitimate parties have to restrain the insurrectionists, or as some like to call hooligans, from fulfilling their aims if both are fighting with all tools available in their respective arsenals?

By attacking the proletariat in the bank. Are you suggesting we allow people to get away with murder just because they happen to hate capitalists?

[nuisance]

Nope but revolutionary armies have formed quickly in the past.
Look what happened, I'd suggest a change of playing field. Anyway, that is in the past and isn't truly comparable to the situation that the majority of Europe operates. How, do you suggest, this army is to be formed in the midst of massive amounts of State repression in a time period which is extremely volatile?



By attacking the proletariat in the bank. Are you suggesting we allow people to get away with murder just because they happen to hate capitalists?
The deaths of the banks workers was tragic, yes. However, the evidence
that the fire was committed by anarchists is rather lose on the ground-
http://www.occupiedlondon.org/blog/tag/may-5th-deaths/

[Psy]

you're talking about a revolutionary army marching through the streets of the biggest city in greece. think for a second.

There were revolutionary armies in Petrograd, Paris, Madrid, Havana hell there was a revolutionary army in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1877 that actually defeated the National Guard due half the National Guard deployed defecting during the battle and the revolutionary army then was formed in a only a few days. Think about that, in only a few days a revolutionary army was formed that was able to defeat the Pennsylvania national guard in battle and came very close to forming a workers state in not only Pennsylvania but in West Virgina and Maryland.




because the struggle for communism is not a military struggle that can be solved on the battlefield by armed specialists, it is a social struggle where the battlefield is our everyday lives, our neighborhoods, our workplaces, our relationships with others and so our power comes from our ability to change these territories and relationships and remove the ruling class from our existence. this may require arms (though we should avoid this as much as possible), but not as a traditional military force.

History proves otherwise for example what I said above.

[Psy]

Look what happened, I'd suggest a change of playing field. Anyway, that is in the past and isn't truly comparable to the situation that the majority of Europe operates. How, do you suggest, this army is to be formed in the midst of massive amounts of State repression in a time period which is extremely volatile?

You do know most revolutionary armies form under extremely volatile conditions, for example there was no Red Army in 1916 and Russia was very repressive far more the Greece today.



The deaths of the banks workers was tragic, yes. However, the evidence
that the fire was committed by anarchists is rather lose on the ground-
http://www.occupiedlondon.org/blog/tag/may-5th-deaths/
True but there was the protesters did not deal with the fire effectively, they did not send in rescue teams to search the bank for survivors or try to put out the fire all which would have been child's play for even the most green revolutionary army.

[bcbm]

History proves otherwise for example what I said above.

its not 1877 anymore.


they did not send in rescue teams to search the bank for survivors

from what i understand, when it was realized there were people trapped above the bank, the demonstrators did go into the building and try to get them out.

[nuisance]

You do know most revolutionary armies form under extremely volatile conditions, for example there was no Red Army in 1916 and Russia was very repressive far more the Greece today.


True but there was the protesters did not deal with the fire effectively, they did not send in rescue teams to search the bank for survivors or try to put out the fire all which would have been child's play for even the most green revolutionary army.
You're a fantasist. Anyway, the situation and concentration of military strength that gave birth to the Bolsheviks seizing power is hardly something to aspire to.

[Psy]

its not 1877 anymore.

How so in this context? What has changed that would make 1877 more difficult?




from what i understand, when it was realized there were people trapped above the bank, the demonstrators did go into the building and try to get them out.
So they just lacked the ability to mobilize equipment and skilled workers.

[Psy]

You're a fantasist. Anyway, the situation and concentration of military strength that gave birth to the Bolsheviks seizing power is hardly something to aspire to.
That is one example we also have the revolutionary army of Pittsburgh in 1877, the revolutionary armies of the Spanish Civil-war, the revolutionary armies of Paris that led to the French revolution and later the Paris commune, the revolutionary army of Italy that defeated Mussolini and other examples.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

If the whole country burns in a fashion that will make December 2008 look like childs play we shall see who wins this "war"

and the accomplishments of December 2008 are...? It could not even make the New Democracy gov't resign.

[Qayin]

and the accomplishments of December 2008 are...? It could not even make the New Democracy gov't resign.
You fucking kidding me? The EU as a whole trembled, the ruling elite considered sending in the EU army when they basically ran out of riot control agents.Its a taste of what could come given the push.

Now to spin your logic.What are the accomplishments of the old left in Europe and America today? Wait... How many useless vanguards exist? You guys still go on about trotsky vs stalin your becoming irrelevant fast and you guys don't see it.


How so in this context? What has changed that would make 1877 more difficult?
You seriously don't see a difference between the 19th and 21st century? :laugh:



Being an insurrectionist when there is no insurrection is stupid.

says the man who thinks anarchists are under the states control.

[Psy]

You fucking kidding me? The EU as a whole trembled, the ruling elite considered sending in the EU army when they basically ran out of riot control agents.Its a taste of what could come given the push.

And?

Do you think NATO would have been defeated if NATO forces deployed into Greece and there was no revolutionary army formed to counter them?



Now to spin your logic.What are the accomplishments of the old left in Europe and America today? Wait... How many useless vanguards exist? You guys still go on about trotsky vs stalin your becoming irrelevant fast and you guys don't see it.

How many workers state were created without the help of a revolutionary army?




You seriously don't see a difference between the 19th and 21st century? :laugh:

Yes there is a difference but the biggest difference is the proletariat is much larger meaning a Pittsburgh revolutionary army like in 1877 would be much larger and have a better chance of the revolution spreading farther due to modern communications.

[bcbm]

How so in this context? What has changed that would make 1877 more difficult?

you seriously can't fathom why 21st century europe is not pittsburgh in 1877?

for a start, let's remember that greece already had a civil war led by a revolutionary army. it didn't turn out well. fast forward 50 years and i doubt there are many who would like another civil war. even if such a situation were feasible and you could procure the arms, recruits, training, supplies, etc (unlikely) you would then be tasked with taking on a modern army backed by nato. if your army is dumb enough to go marching around the streets of the capital during demonstrations, they will probably all get arrested or killed. beyond that, given how public opinion has turned following the death of the bank workers, what do you think would happen if a self-proclaimed army rose up and started military attacks?

drop the gun fetish and try to catch up with reality.


That is one example we also have the revolutionary army of Pittsburgh in 1877

lost


the revolutionary armies of the Spanish Civil-war

lost


the revolutionary armies of Paris that led to the French revolution and later the Paris commune

lost


the revolutionary army of Italy that defeated Mussolini and other examples.

lost

[Zanthorus]

*revolutionary army fetishism*

This gives a whole new meaning to the word tankie.

[BOZG]

I'm not exactly ranting. If I was a trot denouncing(ranting)about this you would have clicked thanks !. Its subjective.

I already put my thoughts on guerrillas I do have problems with them(who happen to also be Marxists) and terrorism in general isn't good as its done in the dark. I met with the Void network from Greece when they were on there book tour for We are an image from the future they had a lot of criticisms for there countries armed militants but they wont denounce them because as anarchists we don't have vested interests in controlling this movement. We are for all different types of resistances. Some will Strike and organize the workers, some will blow up a cop station.

Collective orgasm is a nice way to demean anybody thinking outside the box. Im sure the month long insurrection of December 2008 was just a collective orgasm. Democratic discipline isn't even a real term, the people who discipline don't share the power with all as what democracy is supposed to be. Its an oxymoron.

You still haven't told me how blowing up cop stations raises class consciousness and challenges capitalism. And if you don't think it does, then why are you afraid to criticise those methods?

The aim of serious revolutionaries is to raise class consciousness, further class struggle and overthrow capitalism, it isn't to sit around appeasing everyone and anyone, particularly those whose methods actually belittle class consciousness. This all-inclusiveness bullshit serves no purpose but to derail struggle from taking any concerted, co-ordinated action. Would you denounce those who break a strike on the basis of claims that their tactics of negotiation or work-to-rule are better or would you afford them to right to do as they please under the auspices of not controlling the movement? Surely they have a right to their tactics? Or do the majority of other workers have the right to discipline them?

And as for your rejection of the idea of democratic discipline, how exactly do you plan on challenging the most organised economic and political system in history? Do you really think that sporadic, un-coordinated resistance can actually have any effect?

[Qayin]

You still haven't told me how blowing up cop stations raises class consciousness and challenges capitalism. And if you don't think it does, then why are you afraid to criticise those methods? You took what I said out of context re-read it.


The aim of serious revolutionaries is to raise class consciousness, further class struggle and overthrow capitalism, it isn't to sit around appeasing everyone and anyone, particularly those whose methods actually belittle class consciousness.Then according to your actions of you and your comrades the aim of serious revolutionaries then in the 21st century by looking at what trots and marxist-leninist have done then is practically nothing. Splinter off some vanguard party's, sell newspapers, debate stalin vs trotsky various 20th century topics.



Would you denounce those who break a strike on the basis of claims that their tactics of negotiation or work-to-rule are better or would you afford them to right to do as they please under the auspices of not controlling the movement? Surely they have a right to their tactics? Or do the majority of other workers have the right to discipline them?

Who on our side would break a damn strike? What a stupid analogy. I explained I am for all tactics that are relevant and are not restrained by movement handlers by any means necessary to win the class war. Just the Marxists are so dogmatic they think its there way or the highway, and in previous threads talk about controlling the movement because only a vanguard can make a "revolution" and handing over "hooligans" to the police.


And as for your rejection of the idea of democratic disciplineI rejected the TERM because its an oxymoron.


how exactly do you plan on challenging the most organised economic and political system in history?You know what we do, and its sad our comrades make the news actively resisting the state and capital while the Trots sit around in there 30 member vanguards discussing some Utopian vision of the USSR if Stalin never came to be.


Do you really think that sporadic, un-coordinated resistance can actually have any effect?Enough to get its own section on revleft. :laugh:

[BOZG]

You took what I said out of context re-read it.

The aim of serious revolutionaries then in the 21st century by looking at what trots and marxist-leninist have done then is basically nothing. Splinter off some vanguard partys, sell newspapers, ect.

Who on our side would break a damn strike? I explained I am for all tactics, by any means necessary, just the Marxists are so dogmatic they think its there way or the highway, and in previous threads talk about controlling the movement and handing over "hooligans" to the police.

I rejected the term because its an oxymoron.

You know what we do, and its sad our comrades make the news actively resisting the state and capital while the Trots sit around in there 30 member vanguards discussing some utopian vision if Stalin never came to be.

Enough to get its own section on revleft. :laugh:

I didn't take anything out of context. Your exact words were "We are for all different types of resistances." So you are saying that these tactics have a positive role to play. So what positive role do they play? Or if you don't think they have a positive role to play, why don't you criticise them?

I don't really care whether you think that all Trots and MLs have done is sell newspapers etc, that wasn't the point. If you disagree with it, then tell me where I'm wrong? Do you or do you not think that the role of revolutionaries is to assisting in raising class conscious, furthering class struggle and overthrowing capitalism? If you do, then why shouldn't we criticise tactics that counter that? Or if you don't think that those tactics do counter that, then what progressive role do they play?

One person mentioned handing over people to the police. Stop holding up arguments against people who never made them and have no intention on making them. You said that you're for all different types of resistance. Work-to-rules are a form of resistance. Why shouldn't workers who disagree with the tactics of strikes not be allowed to engage in a work-to-rule instead if you're all for different types of resistance? Or are you saying that incorrect tactics that cut across the effectiveness of workers in struggle should be challenged?

So you rejected the term but you don't reject the concept? Fine. I'm not too pushed about the phraseology of it. So you agree that the minority should have to submit to the majority when necessary?

I do know what you do. You still haven't explained to me how it raises class consciousness and furthers class struggle.

My, my, what an ego you have. You seem to be forgetting about the hundreds of thousands of workers involved in strike action. You know, the ones who represent a real threat to the capitalist system. But they're not burning down banks, so they couldn't be relevant at all!

[Psy]

you seriously can't fathom why 21st century europe is not pittsburgh in 1877?

for a start, let's remember that greece already had a civil war led by a revolutionary army. it didn't turn out well.

Mostly due to the betrayal of Stalin.



fast forward 50 years and i doubt there are many who would like another civil war.

Too bad there will be a point where either the proletariat would have to surrender to the bourgeoisie to avoid war or develop a revolutionary army to defend the revolution.



even if such a situation were feasible and you could procure the arms, recruits, training, supplies, etc (unlikely) you would then be tasked with taking on a modern army backed by nato.

And you think rioters will fair better against NATO troops?



if your army is dumb enough to go marching around the streets of the capital during demonstrations, they will probably all get arrested or killed.

?!?

Police are absolutely no match for revolutionary armies. In fact police regularity disband when faced with revolutionary army advancing against the positions, police officers not suicidal and will not hold their ground with their shotguns and pistols when faced with disciplined infantry.

That said I never said the revolutionary army should march or show off its might.



beyond that, given how public opinion has turned following the death of the bank workers, what do you think would happen if a self-proclaimed army rose up and started military attacks?

I never said started military attacks I said a revolutionary army deal with the fire bombing of the bank workers.

Think what would happened if after the fire bombing of the bank revolutionary army showed up, cleared a path for vehicles of the revolutionary army, entered the bank, brought out the survivors, treated their injuries and put out the fire. The media could not have said the protesters endangered life as the revolutionary army just restored order, saved lives and put out the fire without the help from the state.

[Dimentio]

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/is-firebombing-a-bank-an-acceptable-tactic/

Perhaps I overreacted to hooliganism masquerading as "anarchism" (the other anarchist tendencies being Utopian, Lifestylist, Insurrectionist, Syndicalist, and Platformist), but what is your solution towards not giving cover to those who break glass windows of small shops just to satisfy their testosterone?

Completely idiotic and unacceptable act. Those firebomb throwers are nothing but slayers, spilling innocent blood. Moreover, they have hurt the cause they in their deluded minds think they are supporting.

[KC]

Once again I will raise the most relevant question in this discussion to those who are supporting such actions under the guise of "diversity of tactics" (specifically AMKsurgency but others here as well that have supported it): what did this action accomplish?

No supporters have answered that question, which I think is telling.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Also, what right do these allegedly legitimate parties have to restrain the insurrectionists, or as some like to call hooligans

I didn't say insurrectionists were hooligans.

[Anarchists: Utopians, Lifestylists, Hooligans, Insurrectionists, and the two Class-Strugglist tendencies that are Syndicalist and Platformist.]

The insurrectionists have *not* committed their acts of violence in the middle of demonstrating crowds for the sake of "diversity of tactics." They attack prisons, issue bomb warnings, etc.

It is the high-testosterone hooligans that I've tried to deal with.

Other than speculative future tactics of revolutionary forces, has anyone yet offered a credible alternative in the here and now to demonstrators restraining the high-testosterone hooligans physically and handing them over to the authorities like the class-strugglist KKE has done (to the point of physically unmasking Black Bloc-ists)? :(

[28350]

In a word, no.

The physical bank itself is really inconsequential in the class struggle.
Plus, you're useless (or close to it) to the revolutionary movement if you're arrested and jailed for who knows how many years.

If you're going to firebomb something, firebomb some capitalist propaganda newspaper or something.

[InuyashaKnight]

Burn it all down. A bank is a good step.

[Devrim]

I never said anything extensive about hooligans in this thread. The OP was a form of self-criticism. :confused:

A form of self-criticism would be for you to admit that you were completely wrong in suggesting that demonstrators, whether you want to characterise them as hooligans or not, should be handed over to the police.

Devrim

[Dimentio]

Preferably, other demonstrators should deal with these elements.

[Chambered Word]

Agree they are a good target, but maybe we should keep em standing, they'd make good housing.

Probably one of the best posts in this thread so far. If you aren't going to harm the bourgeoisie in any significant way by burning down banks, clear the shit out of them and turn it into a homeless shelter or a revolutionary headquarters or something useful that will help people. I don't give a fuck about how symbolic of anarchy you think it is to burn down a bank, it's just a building, and one that could be put to good use at that.

Then again if it was a Fight Clube-sque situation where you possibly could erase the world's credit record with a ton of C4 or something, go for it. :lol:

Seriously though, worker's lives are much more important than smashing shit.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Preferably, other demonstrators should deal with these elements.

By doing half of what the KKE does... unmasking them? :lol: :thumbup1:

[bcbm]

Mostly due to the betrayal of Stalin.

missed the point.


Too bad there will be a point where either the proletariat would have to surrender to the bourgeoisie to avoid war or develop a revolutionary army to defend the revolution.

no, you just imagine that such a point has to exist because otherwise all of this military shit is meaningless.


And you think rioters will fair better against NATO troops?

when have i said anything about rioters?


?!?

Police are absolutely no match for revolutionary armies. In fact police regularity disband when faced with revolutionary army advancing against the positions, police officers not suicidal and will not hold their ground with their shotguns and pistols when faced with disciplined infantry.

greece doesn't have an army?


That said I never said the revolutionary army should march or show off its might.

really? because the next thing you talk about...



Think what would happened if after the fire bombing of the bank revolutionary army showed up, cleared a path for vehicles of the revolutionary army, entered the bank, brought out the survivors, treated their injuries and put out the fire. The media could not have said the protesters endangered life as the revolutionary army just restored order, saved lives and put out the fire without the help from the state.

is exactly that.

[Psy]

no, you just imagine that such a point has to exist because otherwise all of this military shit is meaningless.

I'm looking at history and the fact that the bourgeoisie has made it very clear they will defend their class privileges by any means necessary.

It it naive to think the massive imperialist war machines will just give up when faced with with a massive united proletariat uprising. They plan to even have a functional military after a full nuclear exchange that destroys 100% of the world means of production so even if all the workers of the world went on strike it would only inconvenience the major imperialist war machines (in the short term) and the war machines would have more then enough stockpiles to slaughter the workers till our resolves fade that would be very quick if we don't have a revolutionary army to repel their attacks and cause the possibility for massive defections in the militarizes (as troops usually don't go with the whole passive resistance scene but have historically defected to revolutionary armies).

It is utopian to think workers would have any kind of solidarity after the war machine machine guns the proletariat (this was a common tactic of bourgeoisie armies in the 19th century when faced with strikes) with no revolutionary army defend stop the slaughter and counter attack the imperialist war machines.



when have i said anything about rioters?

So who do you think would repel NATO troops if not a revolutionary army?




greece doesn't have an army?

Yes but not a army the bourgeoisie could really count on, thus why the talk of deploying NATO troops in Greece as even the bourgeoisie thinks there is a good chance the Greek army could become a revolutionary army that turns against the bourgeoisie.




really? because the next thing you talk about...

is exactly that.
No, since we talking about a revolutionary army deploying well within the uprisings zone control far from the view of police, depending on the amount of smoke cover the revolutionary army could use the state might not even know the revolutionary army was operating there or if a revolutionary army even existed in Greece if like in Paris May 1968 the police can't reclaim those areas for a very long time.

[Sam_b]

Sorry I can't contribute anything of real substance to this thread, suffice to say I completely agree with KC and comrades sugesting that such tokenistic actions as firebombing banks is pretty alien to the class struggle - but just to say that Psy's repeated fetishism of insurrectionary "revolutionary" armies shows a delusion that I thought would have been pretty dead by now apart from isolated individuals such as our dearly departed Comrade Stalin Guevara et al. It also provides absolutely nothing of any structure, tactic or support to our comrades in Greece. If anything, it highlights Psy's complete detachment from the struggle on the ground, or indeed a complete detachment from reality.

I'll happily withdraw this is I get evidence of Psy holding a mass rally and calling to "bring out the forklift trucks" though.

[Psy]

Sorry I can't contribute anything of real substance to this thread, suffice to say I completely agree with KC and comrades sugesting that such tokenistic actions as firebombing banks is pretty alien to the class struggle - but just to say that Psy's repeated fetishism of insurrectionary "revolutionary" armies shows a delusion that I thought would have been pretty dead by now apart from isolated individuals such as our dearly departed Comrade Stalin Guevara et al. It also provides absolutely nothing of any structure, tactic or support to our comrades in Greece. If anything, it highlights Psy's complete detachment from the struggle on the ground, or indeed a complete detachment from reality.

So basically the bourgeoisie if the worse come to worse can go back to resorting to violence against the proletariat as revolutionary armies are a fetishism?

Now I'm not saying at this point they are needed by sooner or later you reach a point where the bourgeoisie will attempt terrorism against the proletariat to stop a revolution/reverse a revolution.



I'll happily withdraw this is I get evidence of Psy holding a mass rally and calling to "bring out the forklift trucks" though.

But what are you doing other then being pessimistic about the even the idea of proletariat being able to organize a armed body to defend itself against the armed bodies of the state?

[Sam_b]

So basically the bourgeoisie if the worse come to worse can go back to resorting to violence against the proletariat as revolutionary armies are a fetishism?


I'm not into predicting the future. However for the man whose mostly been active in threads about organising a 'revolutionary army' (whatever that concept actually means) [and cites many times when such a tactic has actually failed] and using forklift trucks as barracades at a time where workers are becoming increasingly militant, it certainly is.


But what are you doing other then being pessimistic about the even the idea of proletariat being able to organize a armed body to defend itself against the armed bodies of the state?

aah, the classic 'no u' argument. I guess not a lot apart from organising in my union, organising around Scotland and on campus as part of the Anti-Cuts action network, organising anti-fascist demos, organising within the SWP, agitating within the workplace and joining strikes with fellow workers - you know, stuff that actually helps to organise the class in the first place.


about the even the idea of proletariat being able to organize a armed body to defend itself against the armed bodies of the state?

Are you a soothsayer?

[Psy]

I'm not into predicting the future. However for the man whose mostly been active in threads about organising a 'revolutionary army' (whatever that concept actually means) [and cites many times when such a tactic has actually failed]

You do know Petrograd was a city in 1917 as was the Paris commune and Pittsburg in 1877 as was Detroit in 1967 and Detriot dit not really a revolutionary army but merely disorganized militant veterans that while they had far more skills then the US Army reseve troops by being battle harden by Vietnam were not organized in a united fighting force to cordinate them into a army. Before you say all but Petrograd failed this is not really the case, all these cases the proletrait won the battles early on but failed to expand the revolution to bring in reinforcements to deal with the esculation of the beourgisie.



and using forklift trucks as barracades at a time where workers are becoming increasingly militant, it certainly is.

Because mechnizing the building of barracades is fetish of mechnzation? Wait a minute we Marxists we are suppose to be industrialist and support the mechnization of labor in order to lower nessarly labor time requires to produce the productions of society.

I also posted a large thread about art in communist society.




aah, the classic 'no u' argument. I guess not a lot apart from organising in my union, organising around Scotland and on campus as part of the Anti-Cuts action network, organising anti-fascist demos, organising within the SWP, agitating within the workplace and joining strikes with fellow workers - you know, stuff that actually helps to organise the class in the first place.

Fair enough, I've also organized in my workplaces which has given me hand on experince with how the beourgisie state reacts to threats to the capitalist order.




Are you a soothsayer?
Well you don't need to read Marx to know that the beourgisie will most definatly respond to challenges to its power and will not lose any sleep slaughtering workers on massive scales to make workers more docile if it feels threatened enough as this is excatly what the FBI and CIA has done for decades even domestically in the USA (okay the FBI only slaughter American workers on a small scale but the CIA has slaughter workers on a massive scale outside the USA).

[Sam_b]

all these cases the proletrait won the battles early on but failed to expand the revolution to bring in reinforcements to deal with the esculation of the beourgisie.

Congratulations - this is the point. How can the mass of the proletariat (if we go by the pretty simple enough concept of revolutions being the mass of the working class) fail to 'bring in reinforcements'? The point is that all this delusion and nonsense completely negates building a mass working class to overthrow the bourgeoisie!


Because mechnizing the building of barracades is fetish of mechnzation? Wait a minute we Marxists we are suppose to be industrialist and support the mechnization of labor in order to lower nessarly labor time requires to produce the productions of society.


Yes, yes it fucking is fetishisation. Complete nonsense speculation when everyone knows we are not in any position to start strategising on behalf of the working class, let alone discussing this at a time when the class isn't ready to overthrow capitalism.


I've also organized in my workplaces which has given me hand on experince with how the beourgisie state reacts to threats to the capitalist order.


The point is right now that this is completely irrelevant. Come on, you're talking about building a revolutionary army and using forklift trucks!


Well you don't need to read Marx to know that the beourgisie will most definatly respond to challenges to its power and will not lose any sleep slaughtering workers on massive scales to make workers more docile if it feels threatened enough as this is excatly what the FBI and CIA has done for decades even domestically in the USA (okay the FBI only slaughter American workers on a small scale but the CIA has slaughter workers on a massive scale outside the USA)

Your problem is you see history as completely static and non-continual, and seek to try and rectify this by a militarised and pretty simplistic concept - namely the "revolutionary army". The situation in Petrograd was not directly similar to the Paris Commune, which was not directly similar to France in 1968, which is not directly similar to Greece in 2010. Yes, there were some common factors, but not all of these vastly different experiences could be instantly solved by a "revolutionary army" and its ridiculous you're putting them all in the same context to back up an analysis which really just summounts to "people could molotov the building in defence before rescuing the workers in it".

[Psy]

Congratulations - this is the point. How can the mass of the proletariat (if we go by the pretty simple enough concept of revolutions being the mass of the working class) fail to 'bring in reinforcements'? The point is that all this delusion and nonsense completely negates building a mass working class to overthrow the bourgeoisie!

Simply the uneven radicalization of workers, they failed to bring in reinforcements because they failed to expand the revolution enough to have reserves to call on before the bourgeoisie escalates the war. For example the Pittsburgh revolutionary army in 1877 had recruited pretty much everyone in a tristate area the problem is beyond that the revoltuionary army had no populatrity while the US Army could bring in troops from across the USA yet if there were other revolutionary armies active at the same time through out the USA then the US Army would not have been able to gang up the Pittsburg revolutionary army as it would have been spread thin fighting revoltuionary armies all across the USA from Boston to LA.



Yes, yes it fucking is fetishisation. Complete nonsense speculation when everyone knows we are not in any position to start strategising on behalf of the working class, let alone discussing this at a time when the class isn't ready to overthrow capitalism.

How do we know the working class is not ready to overthrow capitalism? Marxists are well known for never being able to predict exactuly when a revolution will occure and being taken completly surprize when the proletrait mobilizes against capitalists. Even Lenin and Trotsky though another Russian Revolution would not take place for many decades after 1905.



The point is right now that this is completely irrelevant. Come on, you're talking about building a revolutionary army and using forklift trucks!

NATO talks about occupying Greece to restore order in Greece and you think building a revolutionary army in responce is irrelevent? What is the alternative, surrendering to NATO if they decide to send ground troops into Greece?



Your problem is you see history as completely static and non-continual, and seek to try and rectify this by a militarised and pretty simplistic concept - namely the "revolutionary army". The situation in Petrograd was not directly similar to the Paris Commune, which was not directly similar to France in 1968, which is not directly similar to Greece in 2010. Yes, there were some common factors, but not all of these vastly different experiences could be instantly solved by a "revolutionary army" and its ridiculous you're putting them all in the same context to back up an analysis which really just summounts to "people could molotov the building in defence before rescuing the workers in it".
The revolutionary army is a tool of the proletrait that prevents the beourgisie state from simply terrorising the proletrait being in complience (ie the Russian 1905 revolution).

[Sam_b]

Simply the uneven radicalization of workers, they failed to bring in reinforcements because they failed to expand the revolution enough to have reserves to call on before the bourgeoisie escalates the war. For example the Pittsburgh revolutionary army in 1877 had recruited pretty much everyone in a tristate area the problem is beyond that the revoltuionary army had no populatrity while the US Army could bring in troops from across the USA yet if there were other revolutionary armies active at the same time through out the USA then the US Army would not have been able to gang up the Pittsburg revolutionary army as it would have been spread thin fighting revoltuionary armies all across the USA from Boston to LA.
Your problem is you see history as completely static and non-continual, and seek to try and rectify this by a militarised and pretty simplistic concept - namely the "revolutionary army". The situation in Petrograd was not directly similar to the Paris Commune, which was not directly similar to France in 1968, which is not directly similar to Greece in 2010. Yes, there were some common factors, but not all of these vastly different experiences could be instantly solved by a "revolutionary army" and its ridiculous you're putting them all in the same context to back up an analysis which really just summounts to "people could molotov the building in defence before rescuing the workers in it".


How do we know the working class is not ready to overthrow capitalism?

Do I need to dignify this with an answer?


NATO talks about occupying Greece to restore order in Greece and you think building a revolutionary army in responce is irrelevent? What is the alternative, surrendering to NATO if they decide to send ground troops into Greece?

Yes, it is irrelevant. Are you encouraging workers in Greece to be slaughtered by organising into a militarised batallion?


The revolutionary army is a tool of the proletrait that prevents the beourgisie state from simply terrorising the proletrait being in complience (ie the Russian 1905 revolution).

"fapfapfap" - BCBM, 2010.

[Psy]

Your problem is you see history as completely static and non-continual, and seek to try and rectify this by a militarised and pretty simplistic concept - namely the "revolutionary army". The situation in Petrograd was not directly similar to the Paris Commune, which was not directly similar to France in 1968, which is not directly similar to Greece in 2010. Yes, there were some common factors, but not all of these vastly different experiences could be instantly solved by a "revolutionary army" and its ridiculous you're putting them all in the same context to back up an analysis which really just summounts to "people could molotov the building in defence before rescuing the workers in it".

Cause I don't see the advantage of not having organized forces.




Do I need to dignify this with an answer?

Well if the workers are not ready to overthrow capitalism that would mean the protests in Greece should end to avoid the workers from getting demoralized by the state using violence against them.

Yet we don't know if the workers are ready or not.




Yes, it is irrelevant. Are you encouraging workers in Greece to be slaughtered by organising into a militarised batallion?

How would organization make them more likely to be slaughtered? Revolutionary armies would also have a better idea when to retreat and surrender ground thus revolutionaries armies even armed with only rocks are a huge asset, in fact most of the troops of the Pittsburgh revolutionary army of 1877 only were armed with rocks yet differed from modern protesters as they were organized into somewhat effective army as they had some cohesion.





"fapfapfap" - BCBM, 2010.
I'm simply stating a fact that revolutionary armies restrict freedom of movement to armies hostile to the proletariat. For example the Pittsburgh revolutionary army while failed from preventing the US Army from ending the general strike prevented the national guard from ending the strike absorbing half of the national guard into their ranks the revolutionary army that meant the general strike was able to last 45 days because of the strength of the revolutionary army protected the strike for that long before being overpowered by the US Army.

[Sam_b]

Cause I don't see the advantage of not having organized forces.

That isn't in question here - yet again you hae missed the point.


Yet we don't know if the workers are ready or not.

Copout answer. How can we organise a 'revolutionary army' when there is no mass class-conscious working class then?


How would organization make them more likely to be slaughtered?

Because you're putting a non-mass class guerilla-style force up against one of the most powerful armies in the world, which has some of the most advanced weaponry in the world. The entire concept is alienatory. Seeing as you're so proud of the history of your non-existent concept, how do you think the Bolsheviks organised before such a situation arised - ie organised within the army itself to weaken it?


Revolutionary armies would also have a better idea when to retreat and surrender

Lead by your concept of a 'vanguard' as we've seen in the Forklift truck thread. Way to go building the revolution bottom-up.


in fact most of the troops of the Pittsburgh revolutionary army of 1877

Oh I remember those guys! They lost.

It was stupid for me to be dragged into this buffoonery and as such I don't plan on responding further to your delusion.

[Psy]

That isn't in question here - yet again you hae missed the point.



Copout answer. How can we organise a 'revolutionary army' when there is no mass class-conscious working class then?

That actually is not the issue, of course there is some mass class-conscious working class the question is it wide spread enough as if there wasn't the Greek uprisings would not have gotten this far.




Because you're putting a non-mass class guerilla-style force up against one of the most powerful armies in the world, which has some of the most advanced weaponry in the world. The entire concept is alienatory. Seeing as you're so proud of the history of your non-existent concept, how do you think the Bolsheviks organised before such a situation arised - ie organised within the army itself to weaken it?

Who said anything about guerrilla style force? The idea is to build cohesion within the movements on the street through some authority for example a strike council, this concept is not alienate it actually does the opposite by letting the various groups within the community come together and plan their actions on the street. This does not make them a revolutionary army (though useful for when one is needed) but it gives the movement organization and cohesion.

Also most revolutionary armies were actually conventional defensive armies that simply fortified their positions and tried to hang on long enough for the revolution to spread elsewhere.



Lead by your concept of a 'vanguard' as we've seen in the Forklift truck thread. Way to go building the revolution bottom-up.

All vanguard means is those advanced of the rest of the working class. The alternative is to simply let the workers vote on why Greek state is pushing austerity measures in the hopes class confusion will ease without our intervention in a timely manner.



Oh I remember those guys! They lost.

My point is how far they got before they lost.

[Sam_b]

Last time.


That actually is not the issue, of course there is some mass class-conscious working class the question is it wide spread enough as if there wasn't the Greek uprisings would not have gotten this far.


How can there be 'some' when the mass is a supposed to be a majority?

Good luck getting the majority of all workers to stand up to NATO forces.


All vanguard means is those advanced of the rest of the working class
Wow, this might be the most simplistic analysis ever. Its not actually completely correct either.


Finally:


My point is how far they got before they lost.


they lost


they lost


THEY LOST

Now, enough of this stupidity.

[Psy]

Last time.



How can there be 'some' when the mass is a majority?
There can be a majority in a area like Athens but not a majority on a larger scale like Earth.

Even then there might not be a majority on the scale of Universe but I don't think we have to worry about that scale unless imperialist capitalist aliens colonize Earth before a successful world wide workers revolution.



Wow, this might be the most simplistic analysis ever. Its not actually completely correct either.

That actually is the definition of vanguard given by Tony Cliff in his speech explaining the whole point of a vanguard.

[Sam_b]

Cool, long live the revolutionary army of the majority of one city!

[Psy]

Cool, long live the revolutionary army of the majority of one city!

That is the point, we don't know if there is a majority outside the uprising, it could be like May 1968 were there most of the country was class conscious thus all that is needed is a revolutionary army to seize the weak French state that was already preparing fleeing to West Germany in fear of a revolutionary army that never materialized. Or it is like Pittsburgh 1877 were after 45 days of struggle the most of the American proletariat did not even aware there was a workers revolution occurring in the USA (for those 45 days).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Knock, knock! This isn't the thread for a two-person chat on a "revolutionary army." This is a thread for


Other than speculative future tactics of revolutionary forces, has anyone yet offered a credible alternative in the here and now to demonstrators restraining the high-testosterone hooligans physically and handing them over to the authorities like the class-strugglist KKE has done (to the point of physically unmasking Black Bloc-ists)?

[Tablo]

Meh, propaganda of the deed really doesn't amount to much. Killing people(of the enemy class(not that I promote violence in any way)) and burning buildings is completely pointless at this stage in the revolutionary struggle, but I see little problem with it as long as the individual involved does not state they are a part of the revolutionary left, which would hurt our struggle. I say don't waste your time with this kinda shit. Focus more on helping foster class consciousness. As far as the bank burning in Greece I have no problem with the bank being burned, but I do have an issue with the people killed.

[Psy]

Knock, knock! This isn't the thread for a two-person chat on a "revolutionary army." This is a thread for

Other than speculative future tactics of revolutionary forces, has anyone yet offered a credible alternative in the here and now to demonstrators restraining the high-testosterone hooligans physically and handing them over to the authorities like the class-strugglist KKE has done (to the point of physically unmasking Black Bloc-ists)?
Like I said build cohesion within the movements on the street through some authority for example a strike council so everyone is basically on the same page.

[griffjam]

Since when do you need a reason make attacks on capital?

[Zanthorus]

Since when do you need a reason make attacks on capital?

"Capital" is a social relationship. I'll let you work the rest out from there instead of repeating tired cliches.

[Palingenisis]

"Capital" is a social relationship. I'll let you work the rest out from there instead of repeating tired cliches.

Yeah a social relationship administered and enforced by human beings who use stuff (such as buildings) that you can blow up.

[FSL]

Yeah a social relationship administered and enforced by human beings who use stuff (such as buildings) that you can blow up.

Why not blow up their toothbrushes while you're at it?

[Mitsos]

It's definately not.Burning shops and banks is way out of the means that the greek workers movement has used the last 60years.it's a method of the so called anarchist movement a.k.a. 16year old kids with rich daddys.That's why they have been attacked many times from protestors.

[Qayin]

It's definately not.Burning shops and banks is way out of the means that the greek workers movement has used the last 60years.it's a method of the so called anarchist movement a.k.a. 16year old kids with rich daddys.That's why they have been attacked many times from protestors.
Yawn

[Mitsos]

Yawn

That's the truth m8.I am not saying that all anarchists are kids.But most anarchists in the streets of athens are kids.That's why they are only a few when school teachers are not on strike.

They started gathering people after the 2006-2007 students movement cause the cops were really brutal.The second wave was from December 2008 until now with pupils who just want to take revenge for the death of a 16year old.

But they have managed to allienate themselves from the unions and the left parties.e.g. in many protests they have been attacked and beat by protesters and unions.I hope this will escalate unitl these thugs grow a class consiousness or get the hell out of the streets.

[Qayin]

That's the truth m8.I am not saying that all anarchists are kids.But most anarchists in the streets of athens are kids.That's why they are only a few when school teachers are not on strike.Even if they are "kids"(Political minded teenagers?) So what?
Look at May '68, that started with "kids".
When I see KKE supporters say stuff like "Oh there just all kids"...cheap way to demean Anarchists like this. I just remember a quote
from the May 68 event.
"Stalinists, your children are with us!"



But they have managed to allienate themselves from the unions and the left parties.e.g. in many protests they have been attacked and beat by protesters and unions.I hope this will escalate unitl these thugs grow a class consiousness or get the hell out of the streets. Maybe because they don't give a damn about some Marxist party/socialist labor union that should have been left with the failed 20th century. You cant keep doing the same damn thing expecting different results. You say the Anarchists started this whole ordeal now you want them to be attacked because there "thugs". You want the organic peoples struggle to be managed by bureaucrats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwYTwu9q4JQ

Anarchists right?

[Mitsos]

KKE has done (to the point of physically unmasking Black Bloc-ists)? :(

What's bad in unmasking black bloc thugs???I am never wearing mask on a protest.Oh,wait.It's because i do not shop lift or burning banks and shops.

It's not bad that they are kids.It's just who they are.They have nothing to do with the working class.

Well,the working class has chose the unions and the left parties to fight through.If you think unions and parties are not nessecary,that's ok(although I think you are wrong).

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO IMPOSE ON OTHERS HOW TO FIGHT BACK THOUGH.

These thugs alienate the working class,prevent a lot of people from joining protests and in most cases they have act against mass movements.

e.g. they are the main cause why most people in Greece want to stop having university asulym(in Greece till two years ago it was almost impossible for the police to enter a university,now its happening all the time.)When the law that restricted the asylum was passing the anarchists thought the best way to convince society and the working class that asylum is needed is to throw cocteil bombs behind the university bars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RpS_Xc-NRk&feature=related

Guess what!now everyone in Greece wants to stop having university asylum and that the police should enter universities whenever they want.

Good job anarchist movement.

[Lord Testicles]

in many protests they have been attacked and beat by protesters and unions.I hope this will escalate unitl these thugs grow a class consiousness or get the hell out of the streets.

Battering class consciousness into people. You guys are so macho, if Uncle Joe was alive he'd be beating his chest with appreciation right now.


YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO IMPOSE ON OTHERS HOW TO FIGHT BACK THOUGH.

I agree. :)

[Chambered Word]

Yeah a social relationship administered and enforced by human beings who use stuff (such as buildings) that you can blow up.

Buildings don't enslave the working class, the ruling class does. Buildings can be used for useful purposes (which I've already gone into), if it's practical it would make more sense to clear them out to house the homeless instead of simply burning them to the ground.


That's the truth m8.I am not saying that all anarchists are kids.But most anarchists in the streets of athens are kids.That's why they are only a few when school teachers are not on strike.

They started gathering people after the 2006-2007 students movement cause the cops were really brutal.The second wave was from December 2008 until now with pupils who just want to take revenge for the death of a 16year old.

Because teenagers are stupid and are incapable of understanding communism and class and engaging in political work in general?

The rioters were rallying against police who provoked and shot a 15 year old kid, by the way.


KKE has done (to the point of physically unmasking Black Bloc-ists)? :(

What's bad in unmasking black bloc thugs???I am never wearing mask on a protest.Oh,wait.It's because i do not shop lift or burning banks and shops.

All black blocs are about shoplifting and burning banks and shops, right? Maybe the masks have something to do with not wanting to be identified by the state authorities when on demonstrations - ones where people are brutally attacked by police and arrested for no good reason other than making their objection to capitalism heard?


It's not bad that they are kids.It's just who they are.They have nothing to do with the working class.

Spoken like a true socialist. :rolleyes:

[Red Radical]

i have to say that comrade lewis is actually the one who makes the most sense every thing he has said has been true i agree well said comrade

[bcbm]

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO IMPOSE ON OTHERS HOW TO FIGHT BACK THOUGH.


which is why you want to unmask and beat people

[Mitsos]

which is why you want to unmask and beat people

Yes,when 2,000 people are impossing their methodes and they are making us clash with the police.I know that i might sound "weird" in anarchists,but you know people still have the right to choose the means they will use.

Of course if it's alright with your Majesty dear Anarchist Princes.

As I said before being kids it's not bad.That means that they do not have a class sense.So,they do not care about how their actions will be interprated by the working class people.They are so stupid that they are constantly manypulated by the Police and provocateurs.Hundreds of videos in youtube show cops-provocateurs in protests in athens doing THE EXACT SAME THINGS THAT ANARCHISTS DO, burning shops and/or shop lifting. But they still do not understand that what they do helps the goverment.

So,yes,they are just immature kids.

[Mitsos]

Maybe the masks have something to do with not wanting to be identified by the state authorities when on demonstrations - ones where people are brutally attacked by police and arrested for no good reason other than making their objection to capitalism heard?


Hundreds of people were in the protest last week without masks.You know why?Cause there were not to burn shops or banks or destroy anything.If these guys are proud of what they are doing and they believe that these are political actions then why aren't they unmasked??? Our comrade in Kazahstan who got imprisoned again for his trade unionist action is never wearing a mask.That's political stance.Not hiding behind masks like thugs.

I dont care if they get beaten or imprisoned for burning builidings or shops.They got what they deserve.I never wear masks in protests.I even went to a protest in London last year and i got taped.Later i had problems in the security when traveling from London to Athens although i haven't done anything illegal.

COWARDS.

[Die Neue Zeit]

which is why you want to unmask and beat people

Break your precious shop window targets away from the main demonstrations. "Diversity in tactics" (masked cowards mingling in) is the tails to the heads that are agents provocateurs, in that both are acts of infiltration.

[An archist]

I dont care if they get beaten or imprisoned for burning builidings or shops.They got what they deserve.I never wear masks in protests.I even went to a protest in London last year and i got taped.Later i had problems in the security when traveling from London to Athens although i haven't done anything illegal.



...and this is exactly one of the reasons why people wear masks.

[Mitsos]

...and this is exactly one of the reasons why people wear masks.

I am proud of being in that protest and I exercise my right to protest, that's why i never wear a mask.

These thugs know that they don't have the right to burn down shops or destroy banks,that's why they are wearing masks.If they are proud of what they are doing why don't the go unmasked?And why protesters who are not taking part in clashes or not burning shops do not wear masks???

[An archist]

I am proud of being in that protest and I exercise my right to protest, that's why i never wear a mask.

These thugs know that they don't have the right to burn down shops or destroy banks,that's why they are wearing masks.If they are proud of what they are doing why don't the go unmasked?And why protesters who are not taking part in clashes or not burning shops do not wear masks???

I have no idea.
By the way, if you're proud of what you do, I suggest that before every protest you go to the police to let them write down your name, adress and political convictions. And afterwards maybe you should go over again and let them know what you did during the protest.

You're proud of what you're doing right?

[Mitsos]

I have no idea.
By the way, if you're proud of what you do, I suggest that before every protest you go to the police to let them write down your name, adress and political convictions. And afterwards maybe you should go over again and let them know what you did during the protest.

You're proud of what you're doing right?

The only people i have to give record about is my comrades and the working class not the police.In many cases the thugs of the black block have been beaten or stopped by unions.

[MaoTseHelen]

Banks are the source of capital and it is an acceptable tactic to burn them to the ground.

[Chambered Word]

i have to say that comrade lewis is actually the one who makes the most sense every thing he has said has been true i agree well said comrade

Thanks. :)


I am proud of being in that protest and I exercise my right to protest, that's why i never wear a mask.

These thugs know that they don't have the right to burn down shops or destroy banks,that's why they are wearing masks.If they are proud of what they are doing why don't the go unmasked?And why protesters who are not taking part in clashes or not burning shops do not wear masks???

If you love being harassed by police and potentially arrested, go ahead. As for your allegations that all bloc participants are just kids who smash shit, start learning here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bloc

Your assertion that they don't have the 'right' to destroy banks is also ridiculous. While I don't agree that it is always an effective tactic, I find it absurd that anyone would defend a bank's right to exist.

[nuisance]

The only people i have to give record about is my comrades and the working class
Sorry, but I don't think the working class gives a fuck about you or your shitty sect.

[BOZG]

Your assertion that they don't have the 'right' to destroy banks is also ridiculous. While I don't agree that it is always an effective tactic, I find it absurd that anyone would defend a bank's right to exist.

When is it ever an effective tactic then? Despite all the defense of individual terrorism, petrol bombings etc. no one has yet to point out how these tactics raise class consciousness or challenge capitalism.

[BOZG]

Banks are the source of capital and it is an acceptable tactic to burn them to the ground.

Does capital disappear when you burn down banks?

[nuisance]

Does capital disappear when you burn down banks?
Was that the insinuation?

[BOZG]

Was that the insinuation?

That's what I'm wondering.

[nuisance]

When is it ever an effective tactic then? Despite all the defense of individual terrorism, petrol bombings etc. no one has yet to point out how these tactics raise class consciousness or challenge capitalism.
What do you mean by effective tactic? Effective in what context and to who or why?

I'd suggest that many of the insurrectionists quite possibly proscribe to the idea of social war. This isn't simply a rebranding of the term class war, but is an idea that ever evolves with the times in order to remain in constant conflict with authority, whereever it seeks to arise. Meaning that it includes attacking the spectacle of capital, while seeking its abolition. Insurrectionary tactics are also made to be replicated, to encourage such actions neccessary to influence a generalised revolt to overthrow capital and the state. This does not negate networks of workers organising nor people in their communities doing much the same- suggesting as much is a pure strawmen, though largely based upon the widespread ignorance of modern anarchist tendencies within the general left.

Another reasoning for theory of attack, is to challenge the monopoly of violence. This involves preparation to defend demonstrations and more importantly, to go on the offensive. Anarchist spaces have been shut down with precise efficiently, why not torch a bank? The idea is that 'if you fuck with us, we'll fuck with you', instead of lying on your back and taking it or complaining to some other figure of authority- thus 'solidarity means attack'.

I fail to see where anyone claimed that rioting and such actions increase class conciousness but in Greece '08 after the murder of Alexis we saw what was origionally an anarchist response in retaliation increase into massive uproar among people of the working class. This materialised into riots and attacking symbols of authority and capital highlighting the mass disdain for the current system. Because of conciousness caused by the actions in '08, I'd highly doubt the situation in Greece would be the same.

[Omi]

I fail to see where anyone claimed that rioting and such actions increase class conciousness but in Greece '08 after the murder of Alexis we saw what was origionally an anarchist response in retaliation increase into massive uproar among people of the working class. This materialised into riots and attacking symbols of authority and capital highlighting the mass disdain for the current system. Because of conciousness caused by the actions in '08, I'd highly doubt the situation in Greece would be the same.


And this ladys and gentleman is one very important subject not merely touched in any of the threads about Greece.

The importance of a militant and offensive street protest culture is essential in the road to revolution. The fact that people fight the police and capitalist institutions propagates confidence amongst the class that we can overcome the violent obstacles that cross the path towards freedom. It breaks down the idea that banks and other such institutions are invincible. It removes the image of immortality of capital, if we want we could burn the f*ckers down any day. We can overcome this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no insurrectionairy anarchist. But I do understand the importance of militant street presence, and the direct attack on the buildings of capital. BUT, everything has it's time and place. What kept me wondering about the events is this: Why where the ''ordinary'' people storming the parliament, and the anarchists (though we are not shure it were anarchists who did this) burning down a small building? We should be among the frontlines, together with the people whos intention it was to physically remove the government from the palace. The bank burning can occur at night, nothing wrong with that.

And another thing for the nay sayers to think about: Bank and government buildings burning is a very common phenomenon on Greek demonstrations, as is fighting the cops. Every demonstrator present that fatefull day knew this full well. And still they came with the hundreds of thousands. So whats this talk of alienation? The working class in greece is far more symphatic (to a certain extent) to these kinds of actions that self proclaimed revolutionairies in the US and the UK. Apart from a few greek KKE symphatisers that is.

Lets face it, the anarchists' years of street presence and fighting the police and the symbols of state and capital helped spawn the currect street-action culture we see today in Greece. You can't just ignore that, and proclaim here on revleft how Greek comrades in a harsh struggle against the government should organize their movement and how some vanguard party you only just heard of should coup this struggle and even beat protesters and remove their masks.

Just some thoughts, like it or not.

[Ravachol]

The fact that people fight the police and capitalist institutions propagates confidence amongst the class that we can overcome the violent obstacles that cross the path towards freedom.


The problem with this is, as I've argued before, is that in order to be sympathetic to such actions one requires a certain degree of class consciousness and the ability to recognise these institutions for what they are. If militant actions are undertaken without first breaking away large chunks of the dominant cultural hegemony and raising class consciousness, the only signal conveyed here is that certain institutions (which are not percieved as part of the system that causes people's misfortunes) were attacked.



It breaks down the idea that banks and other such institutions are invincible. It removes the image of immortality of capital, if we want we could burn the f*ckers down any day. We can overcome this.


The problem here is that this is a highly militarist approach to revolution. Whether we like it or not, the revolution is never going to be organised in a militarist fashion. Even when outnumbered a thousand to one, Capital's military power is more than capable of obliterating any revolutionary military vanguard. What is required is an assault at Capital's real core: The workplaces and the community. By gradually taking over the sphere of production we simultaniously erode Capital's power and it's hegemonic stranglehold. This will lead to physical and military confrontation with the armed wing of Capital, obviously, but that's a secondary matter in the revolution more than anything else.



and the direct attack on the buildings of capital.

This reminds me of a text by Tiqqun called 'The problem of the Head':



The problem of the head is the problem of representation, the problem of the existence of a body that represents society in so much as a body, of a subject that represents society in so much as subject- no need to distinguish here between existential representation as it is performed by the monarch or fascist leader and the formal representation of the “democratically” elected president.


While not completely related to my argument here, this text touches on the subject of representation and hegemony.
Capital has no 'buildings' as this would imply that some buildings lie outside of Capital's dominance, which is hardly the case (save from those places that have wrested temporary control from Capital into the hands of the working class). Capital isn't like a multi-headed vampire with a few heads (The banks, Parliamentary representatives, Factory owners,the army,etc) that one can chop off and Capital will wither away and die.
Choping off one of these symbolic 'heads' will only make a new one grow back, akin to a hydra.

Capital is a mode of organising production and consumption, it is a logic whose stranglehold functions mainly through it's grip over the institutions that shape our everyday lives. Replacing those institutions with our own and wresting control of the spheres of production and consumption ought to be the primary focus of the revolutionary movement as this is Capital's 'heart', if there is anything like that.

In short: Nihilists, encore un effort si vous voulez être révolutionnaires!

[Omi]

The problem with this is, as I've argued before, is that in order to be sympathetic to such actions one requires a certain degree of class consciousness and the ability to recognise these institutions for what they are. If militant actions are undertaken without first breaking away large chunks of the dominant cultural hegemony and raising class consciousness, the only signal conveyed here is that certain institutions (which are not percieved as part of the system that causes people's misfortunes) were attacked.

If 200.000 workers in a general strike storming the building of parliament isn't a sign of high class consciousness I don't know what is.


The problem here is that this is a highly militarist approach to revolution. Whether we like it or not, the revolution is never going to be organised in a militarist fashion. Even when outnumbered a thousand to one, Capital's military power is more than capable of obliterating any revolutionary military vanguard. What is required is an assault at Capital's real core: The workplaces and the community. By gradually taking over the sphere of production we simultaniously erode Capital's power and it's hegemonic stranglehold. This will lead to physical and military confrontation with the armed wing of Capital, obviously, but that's a secondary matter in the revolution more than anything else.

Your statement presupposes a dichotomy between the two, while what I personally propagate is a harmony. Removing the logic and representation of capital from our everyday lives is both a matter of building counter power and taking over the sphere of production, and a direct offence against the proponents of capitalism, i.e. banks, financial institutions, governments, etc. One can not do without the other. The physical confrontation you talk about is not something that will occur only when the revolutionairy period is ahead of us, but whenever revolution rears it's head. And a general strike and workers storming the parliament is such a sign.


While not completely related to my argument here, this text touches on the subject of representation and hegemony.
Capital has no 'buildings' as this would imply that some buildings lie outside of Capital's dominance, which is hardly the case (save from those places that have wrested temporary control from Capital into the hands of the working class). Capital isn't like a multi-headed vampire with a few heads (The banks, Parliamentary representatives, Factory owners,the army,etc) that one can chop off and Capital will wither away and die.
Choping off one of these symbolic 'heads' will only make a new one grow back, akin to a hydra.

No one has the illusion the bank is now any more significant weaker now that one of their buildings is torched. I know full well that every building out there right now is under the logic of capital (even most squats, most of whom are still insured, under state control, and contribute to housing prices around it) but what is important of what is IN the buildings. No one is torching flats full of working class people just because they are a part of capital in the whole. But the destruction of the means to propagate the logic of capital such as banks can deal significant blows in the capitalist orders. I do not propagate the burning of buildings with people in it. But I will not complain if some big central bank building geats torched, with all the computing systems in it, when the time comes to overcome this capitalist order we live in.

Anyway, can a mod transfer this from the Greece subforum to Theory or Strategy, I don't this this thread, which specifically states the question of the legitimacy of certain tactics, is more relevant to the events in Greece than the general discussion about these tactics in a whole.

[Ravachol]

If 200.000 workers in a general strike storming the building of parliament isn't a sign of high class consciousness I don't know what is.


You are correct about that, I was pointing out that however that the successfull development of a militant street protest culture requires class consciousness as a precondition, not the other way around.



Removing the logic and representation of capital from our everyday lives is both a matter of building counter power and taking over the sphere of production, and a direct offence against the proponents of capitalism, i.e. banks, financial institutions, governments, etc.


While I agree with the need for an offense, this should be a constructive one. I don't think a military offense makes any sense if commited through individualist assaults against buildings. If we are talking about the military side of an insurrection, one would have to concern oneself with military operations to perserve factory occupation and the defense of liberated zones (such as the militant defense of neighborhoods on rent-strike by Italian Autonomists) or military assaults directed at infrastructure critical to bourgois operations.

The only weapon that gives the working class true power, however, is it's self-organisation and the fact that it IS society's core. No bourgois army is going to last if the arms factories have been taken over and no mercenary or fascist group is going to break the revolution if they are not supplied with food or arms. The core to a successfull insurrection is first taking over the sphere of production.



One can not do without the other. The physical confrontation you talk about is not something that will occur only when the revolutionairy period is ahead of us, but whenever revolution rears it's head. And a general strike and workers storming the parliament is such a sign.


This is true, the physical confrontation should occur whenever it is necessary, even in non-revolutionary times if it is required to advance the class struggle. The question is HOW we organise this confrontation. I think the modus operandi of insurrectionists operates according to a flawed individualist, even blanquist view of confrontation. If physical confrontation is to occur in a class struggle context, this ought to be a direct supplement to existing struggle between labor and capital not acts meant to 'inspire' in an idealist sense. It is not so much that I oppose them, I'm all for a diversity of tactics, I simply think it's not going to work and is going to either cost a lot of unnecessary resources and manpower or derail the movement away from mass-oriented revolution.




but what is important of what is IN the buildings. No one is torching flats full of working class people just because they are a part of capital in the whole. But the destruction of the means to propagate the logic of capital such as banks can deal significant blows in the capitalist orders.


While I share your idea that assaults on infrastructure crucial to Bourgois operations might advance our cause in a revolutionary situation. I don't think Banks are central to propagating Capital's Logic. They are central to Capital's Logistics, yes, but Capital's logic is lodged firmly within our minds, propagated by our Schools, Factories, Media outlets,etc

Breaking the logic of Capital requires re-organising the working class as a class for itself which requires heightening class consciousness which is created through participation in mass-struggles arising out of materialist needs. Assaults on Capital's logistics comes secondary to this as they first require an assault on Capital's logic to prevent society from simply re-producing Capital's logistics upon destruction.



Anyway, can a mod transfer this from the Greece subforum to Theory or Strategy, I don't this this thread, which specifically states the question of the legitimacy of certain tactics, is more relevant to the events in Greece than the general discussion about these tactics in a whole.

Seconded!

[Psy]

No one has the illusion the bank is now any more significant weaker now that one of their buildings is torched. I know full well that every building out there right now is under the logic of capital (even most squats, most of whom are still insured, under state control, and contribute to housing prices around it) but what is important of what is IN the buildings. No one is torching flats full of working class people just because they are a part of capital in the whole. But the destruction of the means to propagate the logic of capital such as banks can deal significant blows in the capitalist orders. I do not propagate the burning of buildings with people in it. But I will not complain if some big central bank building geats torched, with all the computing systems in it, when the time comes to overcome this capitalist order we live in.

I would as it is bloody stupid, the big central banks computers are only second to the computers systems of DARPA, most of their mainframes are bleeding edge that cost more then the GDP of most nations. So why destroy some of the most advanced mainframes on Earth just because capitalist use them to track capital transcations and predict trends in the markets?

Would it not be more logical to seize the computer systems and unleash the banks massive computer power towards more productive (from a communist perceptive) endeavors.

[Ravachol]

I would as it is bloody stupid, the big central banks computers are only second to the computers systems of DARPA, most of their mainframes are bleeding edge that cost more then the GDP of most nations.

Well that's a bit over the top, they're expensive yes but not THAT expensive. Also, most financial processing and messaging isn't done by banks but by SWIFTNet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interbank_Financial_Telecomm unication) and TIPANet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIPANET).

But yes, destroying machines because they're used for a certain purpose is not the way to go. We aren't going to destroy all guns simply because the bourgoisie once pointed them at us.

[Psy]

Well that's a bit over the top, they're expensive yes but not THAT expensive. Also, most financial processing and messaging isn't done by banks but by SWIFTNet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interbank_Financial_Telecomm unication) and TIPANet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIPANET).

I'm talking automated speculation through computer algorithms that track the entire market and runs it through algorithms that are suppose to predict how markets will react given current data. There are done on massive mainframes that suck in all the trading data and then alerts traders on trends based on the mathematically logic set in by the programmers. This is how major large trading companies get most their intel that is not inside information.

Wal-Mart uses the same kind of system but it tracks every transaction at every Wal-Mart in the world and compares it to demographic data to stock Wal-Marts around the world based what the centrial computer system predicts will give Wal-Mart the most profits and also automatically adjust prices based on what the computer system thinks will give Wal-Mart the highest profit rate.

[Qayin]

Psy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=10788) I agree completely with you now. Start up the forklifts comrade!
Maybe we can pin some hooligans together with those molotovs

[Omi]

While I share your idea that assaults on infrastructure crucial to Bourgois operations might advance our cause in a revolutionary situation. I don't think Banks are central to propagating Capital's Logic. They are central to Capital's Logistics, yes, but Capital's logic is lodged firmly within our minds, propagated by our Schools, Factories, Media outlets,etc

Breaking the logic of Capital requires re-organising the working class as a class for itself which requires heightening class consciousness which is created through participation in mass-struggles arising out of materialist needs. Assaults on Capital's logistics comes secondary to this as they first require an assault on Capital's logic to prevent society from simply re-producing Capital's logistics upon destruction.

Yeah, I meant the logistics of capital, not the logic (theoretically) itself. English isn't my strongest point. I further fully agree with you.


I would as it is bloody stupid, the big central banks computers are only second to the computers systems of DARPA, most of their mainframes are bleeding edge that cost more then the GDP of most nations. So why destroy some of the most advanced mainframes on Earth just because capitalist use them to track capital transcations and predict trends in the markets?

Would it not be more logical to seize the computer systems and unleash the banks massive computer power towards more productive (from a communist perceptive) endeavors.

I didn't know that. In that case, yes, let us use those computer systems for a better purpose! But my point was not to destroy all computers that serve capital, but attack the tools of capital to function.

[Red Saxon]

Burning down a bank is just burning down a building. Now that most money is just metaphysical blips on a computer screen, burning a bank does nothing.

More fruitful to spend your time learning how to crash banking servers.

[Sam_b]

More fruitful to spend your time learning how to crash banking servers.

Allowing more leway for governments to bail out bankers rather than the people who will be hit by it?

[Red Saxon]

Allowing more leway for governments to bail out bankers rather than the people who will be hit by it?Doesn't blowing up a bank do the same thing?

[Psy]

Doesn't blowing up a bank do the same thing?
Correct so the best way to actually hurt the capitalist system is to seize means of production rather then damaging means of production.

[nuisance]

Correct so the best way to actually hurt the capitalist system is to seize means of production rather then damaging means of production.
A bank isn't part of the 'means of production'.

[Sam_b]

Doesn't blowing up a bank do the same thing?

Yes. So what?

[Psy]

A bank isn't part of the 'means of production'.
And?

It is not like Athens only has banks, I'm sure there are actual means of production within Athens.

[nuisance]

And?

It is not like Athens only has banks, I'm sure there are actual means of production within Athens.
OMG, RLY?!
We're talking about firebombing banks here, not anything that could be considered as the means of production, so quite how you made that wild jump is quite bewildering.
LOGIC FAIL.

[Psy]

OMG, RLY?!
We're talking about firebombing banks here, not anything that could be considered as the means of production, so quite how you made that wild jump is quite bewildering.
LOGIC FAIL.
My point is why bother with the banks, what makes them a priority target?

[Omi]

They are not a priority target and nobody said that we will just firebomb a bank and that will be the end of it. But that doesn't change the fact it can be applied as a useful tactic, which is what the topic is all about.

[nuisance]

My point is why bother with the banks, what makes them a priority target?
So your comment, which was about destorying the means of production is completely redundant then. Why didn't you just ask this question is the first place?

[pastradamus]

The Banks are identifiable with capitalism and with the austerity measures. Thats why I believe it was targeted. The people who did this act are scumbags who represent nothing more than violent and unjustifiable behavior. Whoever did this hasn't even the humanity to apologize for the deaths of three dead workers - How anyone here can call them left-wing Is beyond me. Not only have they killed three workers but have stuck a thorn in the side of the true left-wing protesters.

[Obs]

The Banks are identifiable with capitalism and with the austerity measures. Thats why I believe it was targeted. The people who did this act are scumbags who represent nothing more than violent and unjustifiable behavior. Whoever did this hasn't even the humanity to apologize for the deaths of three dead workers - How anyone here can call them left-wing Is beyond me. Not only have they killed three workers but have stuck a thorn in the side of the true left-wing protesters.

But but but... the SYMBOLISM!

[KC]

They are not a priority target and nobody said that we will just firebomb a bank and that will be the end of it. But that doesn't change the fact it can be applied as a useful tactic, which is what the topic is all about.

We are still waiting for supporters of this action to explain the actual, tangible benefits of bombing a bank; you can't really call it a "useful" tactic without explaining how it's useful.

[Omi]

We are still waiting for supporters of this action to explain the actual, tangible benefits of bombing a bank; you can't really call it a "useful" tactic without explaining how it's useful.

It is the same way demonstrations are useful, it is the same way the KKE thinks it's useful to drop banners from the Acropolis. (which the anarchists did a year and a half back, too).
It sends a message, not only by the media, but also from the demonstration itself where the action takes place: We will not be fucked with.

This attitude is propagated by the Greek anarchist milieu for decades now, and is taking root in the protest-culture in Greece. This is one of the many reasons people are now taking to the streets, and take a ''we will not be fucked with'' attitude in their organising and actions.

[AK]

Yeah a social relationship administered and enforced by human beings who use stuff (such as buildings) that you can blow up.
So you're saying, that instead of taking control of the means of production... we blow them up?
I guess you're right; it's probably more fun and the memories of the revolution that we will have in our heads will be of pretty things like fireworks.

[bcbm]

So you're saying, that instead of taking control of the means of production... we blow them up?
I guess you're right; it's probably more fun and the memories of the revolution that we will have in our heads will be of pretty things like fireworks.

"we have always lived in shantytowns and if we destroy we are also capable of building. it was us who built the palaces and the cities. the workers can build them again and better ones; we are not afraid of ruins, we have a new world here in our hearts."

durutti

[Tavarisch_Mike]

yes, and please do not try to use quotes of comrad Durutti ti justify barbaric behaviour.

[bcbm]

uh, i wasn't

[Fietsketting]

yes, and please do not try to use quotes of comrad Durutti ti justify barbaric behaviour.
Its exactly what he ment tho.

[Ravachol]

yes, and please do not try to use quotes of comrad Durutti ti justify barbaric behaviour.

Please define 'barbaric' behavior. I do not see how bcbm's quote justifies 'barbaric' behavior, unless you consider everything that isn't a nice High Tea party with Vivaldi's 'Primavera' playing in the background 'barbaric' :rolleyes:

[Obs]

Killing workers is pretty barbaric.

[bcbm]

i was responding to the idea of "destroying the means of production" raised in the post i quoted, not the killing of workers.

[AK]

Still, it'd be smarter to keep the means of production intact rather than destroy them.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Maybe ive just missunderstand evrything but i thought that the quote was ment to defend the burning of the bank by saying that we can allways build up a new one, even a better one, when still 3 workers have been killed and i find it surprising that some people one this discussion find it so none-important ore even ignoring it.

[bcbm]

no, it was talking about attacking property generally.

[Agnapostate]

Is there anyone that objects to robberies of banks and other financial institutions? I wouldn't see why.

[Obs]

Is there anyone that objects to robberies of banks and other financial institutions? I wouldn't see why.
I object to it if bank workers suffer. Beyond that, I'm fine with it. However, simply bombing a bank (killing workers in the process) for the hell of it is a meaningless act of destruction with no tangible benefit. Not even the banks suffer, they'll find some way to have taxes pay for the repairs.

[this is an invasion]

Can we seriously move past this shit? It's been like a month.

[Obs]

Yeah, who cares if three workers have been killed by an ideologically bankrupt attempt at activism, it's been a month.

[this is an invasion]

Yeah, who cares if three workers have been killed by an ideologically bankrupt attempt at activism, it's been a month.

That's a cool story, bro. Perhaps you can tell it at a party sometime.

But in the mean time, what's done is done, and discussing it continually on RevLeft isn't going to do anything. Seriously, what the fuck do you hope to accomplish by saying "omfg three workers died!" over and over? We all know that it happened, and it fucking sucks. But worse atrocities have been committed by "communists" before this.

[Obs]

That's a cool story, bro. Perhaps you can tell it at a party sometime.

But in the mean time, what's done is done, and discussing it continually on RevLeft isn't going to do anything. Seriously, what the fuck do you hope to accomplish by saying "omfg three workers died!" over and over? We all know that it happened, and it fucking sucks. But worse atrocities have been committed by "communists" before this.

First of all, how is that different from any discussion on RevLeft?

And I just think it's relevant to mention the results of the anarchist glorification of unthinking violence and destruction as often as it takes until anarchists start being more constructive instead of continuing to lay dormant for a few weeks with little to no activity and then either bomb something or break some shop windows.

And sure, 'communists' have committed worse atrocities - much worse, no argument there. But this thread is about a certain incident committed by leftists of a certain tendency, and as such, members of that tendency must address this incident and stand up to scrutiny from others, so if I said "you know, this was pretty silly, but did you know that the Khmer Rouge killed MILLIONS in the name of Communism?" I would look like a fool.

[this is an invasion]

First of all, how is that different from any discussion on RevLeft?

And I just think it's relevant to mention the results of the anarchist glorification of unthinking violence and destruction as often as it takes until anarchists start being more constructive instead of continuing to lay dormant for a few months with little to no activity and then either bomb something or break some shop windows.
That was such an accurate representation of anarchism in Greece.


jk

[Obs]

Sorry, I fixed it now.

[GreenCommunism]

I object to it if bank workers suffer. Beyond that, I'm fine with it. However, simply bombing a bank (killing workers in the process) for the hell of it is a meaningless act of destruction with no tangible benefit. Not even the banks suffer, they'll find some way to have taxes pay for the repairs.

bank worker will always suffer from a bank robbery, having a gun pointed at your face is no small deal when it comes to psychology. some who are more sensitive basicly go to a shrink in order to solve this problem.

[Obs]

bank worker will always suffer from a bank robbery, having a gun pointed at your face is no small deal when it comes to psychology. some who are more sensitive basicly go to a shrink in order to solve this problem.
Well, it varies, I guess. I've been robbed at gunpoint and I didn't need help afterwards.

[LebenIstKrieg]

are you lot still fucking whining.

[chegitz guevara]

Well, it varies, I guess. I've been robbed at gunpoint and I didn't need help afterwards.

So everyone is just like you?

[bcbm]

bank worker will always suffer from a bank robbery, having a gun pointed at your face is no small deal when it comes to psychology. some who are more sensitive basicly go to a shrink in order to solve this problem.

passing a note to the teller is much more common than waving a gun around.


the anarchist glorification of unthinking violence and destruction

loads of anarchists are opposed to these sort of tactics... and i'm pretty sure that throwing a molotov in a bank isn't "unthinking violence," as there is a reason behind it.

[The Ben G]

Maybe if no one is there, but other than that, I would consider that Terrorism and Counter Revolutionary.

[Ravachol]

Maybe if no one is there, but other than that, I would consider that Terrorism and Counter Revolutionary.

What constitutes 'Terrorism'? Is a military assault by a Red Army on the barracks of reactionary forces not terrorism because it's done in a regular military fashion (as opposed to assymetric warfare)?

I don't think there is any such thing as 'Terrorism', there are military operations and that's it. Holding that assymetric warfare, which is essentialy what 'terrorism' is, is intrinsically Counter Revolutionary is ridiculous.

If we're talking about vanguardist Blanquism, now that's something different but that has nothing to do with 'terrorism' per se. A military force (let us say a Maoist army) conducting regular military operations can be just as Blanquist as a small group of Anarchist insurrectionaries waging urban guerilla.

[Honggweilo]

What constitutes 'Terrorism'? Is a military assault by a Red Army on the barracks of reactionary forces not terrorism because it's done in a regular military fashion (as opposed to assymetric warfare)?

I don't think there is any such thing as 'Terrorism', there are military operations and that's it. Holding that assymetric warfare, which is essentialy what 'terrorism' is, is intrinsically Counter Revolutionary is ridiculous.

If we're talking about vanguardist Blanquism, now that's something different but that has nothing to do with 'terrorism' per se. A military force (let us say a Maoist army) conducting regular military operations can be just as Blanquist as a small group of Anarchist insurrectionaries waging urban guerilla.

The main difference between a blanquist attack and a mass revolutionary struggle is participation and a significant mass base. the CNT-FAI, Tupamaros, the UCPN and the platformists had that, most insurrectionists have not (as also alot of urban guerilla groups).

[Red Lion]

Still, it'd be smarter to keep the means of production intact rather than destroy them.

This.

Firebombing banks will not help anything. They will get the repair money back on the insurance, there is no tangible good to be destroyed as the money won't be destroyed by the bomb, and all you will do is hurt innocent bank tellers, innocent bystanders and alienate those who aren't already in agreement with you, while attracting pure troublemakers to your banner.

[Ravachol]

The main difference between a blanquist attack and a mass revolutionary struggle is participation and a significant mass base. the CNT-FAI, Tupamaros, the UCPN and the platformists had that, most insurrectionists have not (as also alot of urban guerilla groups).

I agree, Blanquism are military operations carried out FOR the working class whilst revolutionary struggle are military operatoins carried out BY a significant segment OF the workingclass. I do think however, that some irregular military operations might simply be tactical at times.

Also, it is possible for insurrectionist thought and practice to spread through the social terrain in a spontaneous mass-uprising, this has happened at times before in history. However, I do think it's highly unlikely and not really a stable revolutionary theory to rely on.

[bcbm]

i don't think most insurrectionists don't view their actions as "for the working class."

[Ravachol]

i don't think most insurrectionists don't view their actions as "for the working class."

I'm aware of that as most view their actions as a direct assault against the institutions that opress them in their daily lives, but most do subscribe to a class-based view of society if i'm not mistaken.

[Obs]

So everyone is just like you?
Let's say a revolutionary organisation (won't name any specifics because that could land me in jail) receives funding for an operation at a critical time. Does it matter if a bank teller has to go to a shrink for a while? I mean, I appreciate that there are limits (killing and actual violence, for example), but if pointing a gun full of blanks at someone can help substantially improve the lives of hundreds of others, I'm not sure I'd object to someone doing just that.

[human strike]

I think it better to recruit than burn workers.

[Agnapostate]

Anyone ever read this account (http://www.simonsebagmontefiore.com/Young-Stalin-Extract.pdf) of an early bank robbery orchestrated by a young Stalin? Fascinating; almost comparable to a thriller action novel.

[nuisance]

I think it better to recruit than burn workers.
Who here doesn't think that's the case out of the two options you present, eh?

[RED DAVE]

Just a quick point: Does anyone doubt that the political situation for the Left would be much more favorable if the firebombing and deaths hadn't happened?

RED DAVE

[this is an invasion]

Just a quick point: Does anyone doubt that the political situation for the Left would be much more favorable if the firebombing and deaths hadn't happened?

RED DAVE

I think it would be exactly the same regardless of whether the bank burning happened. What fucked everything up was the deaths.

[bcbm]

Just a quick point: Does anyone doubt that the political situation for the Left would be much more favorable if the firebombing and deaths hadn't happened?

RED DAVE

if the situation got too "favorable" and the movement can be so easily dispersed, the state would just hire some fascists to go plant bombs and kill people or shoot at a few cops and illicit the same reaction.

[chegitz guevara]

Let's say a revolutionary organisation (won't name any specifics because that could land me in jail) receives funding for an operation at a critical time. Does it matter if a bank teller has to go to a shrink for a while? I mean, I appreciate that there are limits (killing and actual violence, for example), but if pointing a gun full of blanks at someone can help substantially improve the lives of hundreds of others, I'm not sure I'd object to someone doing just that.

That's a different argument.

[chegitz guevara]

if the situation got too "favorable" and the movement can be so easily dispersed, the state would just hire some fascists to go plant bombs and kill people or shoot at a few cops and illicit the same reaction.

If the movement is such that a couple of fascists could be hired to pretend to be them, fuck things up, and be accepted by everyone as being part of the movement, then the movement has problems.

[nuisance]

If the movement is such that a couple of fascists could be hired to pretend to be them, fuck things up, and be accepted by everyone as being part of the movement, then the movement has problems.
Do you think that everyone, on the edge of a revolutionary situation, will be fully up for the task of restructing society? I'm of the idea that there has to be a tipping point, of were there's a chance for either revolution or recuperation. That's why insurrectionists promote permantent conflictuality, so that when such a time comes there shall be a radical movement with teeth to inspire and invoke the masses into action, aswell as helping create a movement with abit of fire in its belly. I'm afraid it may have to go to the point of no turning back before such attempts to usurp the movement will not have an affect on alot of peoples emotions and moral frameworks.

Though this is all hypothetical, since we simply don't know.

[El Rojo]

the destruction of property is acceptable , furthermore, fundamental, for the sucess of the revolution

the killing of workers is not acceptable, and is entirely detrimental, to the sucess of revolution

[chegitz guevara]

I don't think the destruction of property is fundamental, in except as much as property will be destroyed as a consequence of combat. We aim to preserve as much property as we can, and take it for ourselves.

The looting of a bank would be better than bombing it. Destroy the records of loans and mortgages, liberate the money, save the building. Maybe it could be a school or museum after the revolution.

[this is an invasion]

I don't think the destruction of property is fundamental, in except as much as property will be destroyed as a consequence of combat. We aim to preserve as much property as we can, and take it for ourselves.

The looting of a bank would be better than bombing it. Destroy the records of loans and mortgages, liberate the money, save the building. Maybe it could be a school or museum after the revolution.


The bolded part is good in theory, but unfortunately records exist online now. They do not reside in any single bank.

[chegitz guevara]

For the most part, money isn't real anymore either, but only exists as ones and zeros on a disk somewhere.

Here's the important thing, though. Courts, at least here in America, don't yet support facsimiles of documents, but require the original. A number of people have been able to stop paying mortgages by demanding the banks produce the original signed document, and the banks can't produce it.

Course, Europe is more advanced than we are, so that might not be the case over there.

[this is an invasion]

For the most part, money isn't real anymore either, but only exists as ones and zeros on a disk somewhere.

Here's the important thing, though. Courts, at least here in America, don't yet support facsimiles of documents, but require the original. A number of people have been able to stop paying mortgages by demanding the banks produce the original signed document, and the banks can't produce it.

Course, Europe is more advanced than we are, so that might not be the case over there.


You are totally right lols. My bad.

[Chambered Word]

The bolded part is good in theory, but unfortunately records exist online now. They do not reside in any single bank.

Would it actually be possible for DDoSers to take it all out? Could the actual servers themselves be destroyed to wipe out the records? :blink:

[Fietsketting]

I see several posters here who speak out against the firebombing off a bank, in wich unfortunately three workers died, but yet in a other thread they scream out there support for Hamas wich is known to bomb busses and marketplaces full off workingclass people. Odd.

[t.shonku]

Guerrilla war teaches us to "take what we can and destroy the rest." If possible while attacking a bank money must be taken and computers and documents be destroyed.If the money and can't be taken then "burn em all"