black clad protesters clash with g20 police

[bcbm]

http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/11593

oh those anarchists

[h0m0revolutionary]

Page not found comrade :blink:

[bcbm]

fixed

[Fietsketting]

:thumbup1:

And what are they hitting? Police, Banks, Starbucks, and other major capitalist companies. All fine by me. Make that statement!

Plus, the dutch prime minister was unable to participate in the summit cause he couldn't leave his hotel due to riots. Much better then sit in a park surrounded by angry pigs and sing songs about Mother Earth en bunnies.

[bcbm]

http://images.ctv.ca/gallery/photo/g8-g20-toronto-violent-protests-20100626/image1.jpg

http://images.ctv.ca/gallery/photo/g8-g20-toronto-violent-protests-20100626/image87.jpg

[Fietsketting]

http://www.g20breakdown.com/2010/06/1373/

Look, its your peacefull activists. See how much the cops care?


http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef0133f1dff0b2970b-900wi
Bank

http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef0133f1dffafe970b-900wi
http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef0133f1e00371970b-700wi
Peacefull protest

http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef0133f1e00048970b-900wi
Nuff said!

[Stand Your Ground]

Riot porn! <3

:thumbup1:

Good work comrades.

[Foldered]

As long as workers at the establishments hit weren't hurt, then I support the attacks.

With as many officers as they had deployed, restricting rights, this sort of behaviour becomes necessary. It started off peacefully and would have continued to be peaceful, but, as is often the case, police officers escalate the situation by infringing on fundamental rights to protest.

EDIT: I fucking love that last photo.

[Fietsketting]

Follow them on Twitter at http://twitter.com/mediacoop


http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef0133f1dfeb85970b-900wi
rawr!

http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef01348505702b970c-900wi
http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef0133f1dfec94970b-900wi
http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef0133f1dfeee8970b-900wi
Run piggie, run!

http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef0133f1dfef75970b-900wi
http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef0133f1dff2ec970b-700wi
http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef0133f1dff016970b-900wi
And this guy just hasn't got a clue :lol:

[Foldered]

Looks like these guys had it down pretty well and were prepared for the worst.

[Pavlov's House Party]

fucking black bloc idiots
the cops basically used them as a tool to disperse the rest of the protestors, allowing them to destroy shop windows unopposed and even left that cop car in the open for them, so they could rush the entire crowd with batons, spray etc.

it's no wonder that in montreal on may day the unions organize a seperate demonstration from these immature idiots

[bcbm]

go cry a river, nobody cares

JKgFsqry6LQ

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Pavlov's House Party]

go cry a river, nobody cares

except the hundreds of innocent activists who were beaten by cops for the actions of a few dozen "black bloc" kids

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[bcbm]

except the hundreds of innocent activists who were beaten by cops for the actions of a few dozen "black bloc" kids

because the brave police would never attack peaceful protesters without provocation. :rolleyes:


The entire labour movement of Canada and people's forces do care.i am willing to bet that by the end of july they will have forgotten about all of this, besides those settling court cases and gearing up for a class action lawsuit that should net all of the arrested protesters who participate a couple grand. fucking black bloc :-(


Sorry BCBM, fuck the Black Bloc and the Agent Provocateurs in their ranks.my name is lowercase letters.


The Police let them riot. They had thousands of cops surrounding them but did not move in. They wanted to justify a 1.3 billion security budget.and just think if nothing had happened... 1.3 billion would still be gone and nobody would be held accountable. next summit would still see huge spending on a massive police force. welcome to global reality.


The media is not covering any of the violent assault on the peaceful protest only the attacks made by moron children and their cop leaders in the black bloc."cop leaders," you're a fucking idiot. and an ageist.

[The Grey Blur]

what a bunch of pricks. i wish there was some way i could distance myself further from these people...they have no relationship to serious anti-capitalist action that isn't rioting once a year. and they're riddled with agent provocateurs.

[bcbm]

they have no relationship to serious anti-capitalist action that isn't rioting once a year

absolute horseshit.

[Fietsketting]

You lot should continue to sell radical magazine's on streetcorners. For the revolution! One magazine at the time! Sitting in a park listening to NGO´s is not going to get you a revolution, show your anger!

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[bcbm]

glad you're getting the picture

[Mindtoaster]

I've heard small, locals stores were attacked and looted. Though I can't confirm this yet

If so, shame on them

If not, whatever.

[Fietsketting]

Yea because revolution is what happened today in toronto by smashing Star Buck's window.

No, but its a direct action against a company that is known for its bad behavior to their employees. Worker struggle, anyone?

Look at the IWW Starbucks Workers Union if you want some more indepth on the subject? Or that of the CNT in Spain? Or the FAU in Germany?

[bcbm]

I've heard small, locals stores were attacked and looted. Though I can't confirm this yet

If so, shame on them

If not, whatever.

everything must go!

meanwhile, some "experts (http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/27/g20-protests-no-big-deal-in-comparison-with-earlier-summits-experts-say)" think this wasn't a very big deal.

[blake 3:17]

It seems pretty reliable that police did participate in the Black Bloc, which isn't to say that the BB was only cops. The march yesterday was massive, easily 20 000. Police lost control in several spots yesterday. Today thousands of people have protested in different locations.

The split between good ptotesters and ecil "anarchists" isnt so clean

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[blake 3:17]

Large numbers being arrested right now\

[bcbm]

Yeah great, workers at that Starbuck's store in question will be getting no income coming in while their being repaired. It has really inspired them to join the IWW.

most businesses don't close when their windows get smashed, they usually just board them up and keep going, especially larger stores. also replacing a window pane isn't going to take very long.

and i don't know about most workers, but i would personally be pretty happy if my place of employment got fucked up because i hate it.

[Fietsketting]

Yeah great, workers at that Starbuck's store in question will be getting no income coming in while their being repaired. It has really inspired them to join the IWW.

Black Blockers of the World smash other workers workplaces and then they will unite!!!!!

Bollocks and you know it. Your not a big fan of supporting any worker struggle are you? And are they there 'workplaces', you mean the location in wich they do there wage slavery right?

They are united and work together to improve there life, all that without your glorious party. ;)

[Foldered]

non-violent, or "innocent," protesters would have been subject to police brutality regardless of black bloc action.
i highly doubt the scenario went like this: black bloc starts smashing shit> police start being physical> innocents get brutalised by police as a result of black bloc actions.
even though i am on the fence in the justification of black bloc actions, it's ridiculous to think that non-violents would have been safe if black bloc didn't act as they did.

for the record i'm involved with the swu.

[Fietsketting]

non-violent, or "innocent," protesters would have been subject to police brutality regardless of black bloc action.
i highly doubt the scenario went like this: black bloc starts smashing shit> police start being physical> innocents get brutalised by police as a result of black bloc actions.
even though i am on the fence in the justification of black bloc actions, it's ridiculous to think that non-violents would have been safe if black bloc didn't act as they did.

for the record i'm involved with the swu.
Yep, its the same old story. " We have to keep our respective faces in the media! When the times come the masses will rise bla bla bla "

If there are no masses you go look for other options. Bruce springsteen sang it already..

You can't start a fire without a spark ;)

[gorillafuck]

A question to those who are opposed to taking physical action against the G20, what would you prefer they do? I'm genuinely curious.

[bcbm]

A question to those who are opposed to taking physical action against the G20, what would you prefer they do? I'm genuinely curious.

not breach the social peace :(

[Foldered]

and i don't know about most workers, but i would personally be pretty happy if my place of employment got fucked up because i hate it.
so long as a) i, and none of my coworkers, got hurt, b) none of the customers got hurt, and c) i didn't have to clean it up.

but yes, i can't say seeing a smashed sbux window didn't make me a little satisfied...

[Ravachol]

Who cares about a few windows anyway. What I'm more afraid of is the practice-fetish advocating a certain routine (summit-hopping and physical confrontation) dominating some segments of the confrontation-camp as well as the practice-fetish (pamphleteering, shouting slogans, carrying banners,blablabla) dominating some segments of the 'social peace' camp.

Both sides create a false dichtomy and entrench their practice in a fetishised spectacle in which only the revolutionary milieu and the state participate with the working class as it's spectator and the corporate and state media as the communication channel. Whilst physical confrontation can be a usefull strategy at times, a sole focus on this is never going to bring about revolutionary change, which requires mass-oriented struggle. The militancy isn't the question here, it's relation to the working class and the effectivity of it's striking against capital is.

[durhamleft]

A personal thought from someone not involved in the anarchist movement-

Wouldn't it have been better to use the 'militants' in the "black block" to try and sabotage the meeting and break into the locations etc. rather than just smashing up shops as while I'm sure its good fun it simply will only isolate your movement further from the general public?

[Mindtoaster]

You people should wait and learn the actual story behind the rioting before throwing around support and condemnation

[thälmann]

i think violence is basically justified in situations like these. if it makes sense running to the streets and smashing windows, is another question.
but attacking police, building barricades and trying to avoid a g20 summit is ok. but of course it would be better if this is much more organized.

arguments like, dont smash shops because the workers couldnt work there, is like stop striking because it has the same effect in a much greater dimension.

and the medias are of course against real critic, even if its peaceful.
i mean their will be times when people will be killed, so some burned cars should not be the problem. the only question is, if this make sense or not in a single situation

[Jimmie Higgins]

You can't start a fire without a spark ;)

Well sparks can't do shit if you don't have any fuel and since these "activists" aren't doing anything to actually organize people or convince them of radical politics, this is not a spark it is revolutionary masturbation.

If it's true that the trade-unions feel like they have to organize separately from radicals (who presumably have a class view of society) how are these radicals going to convince rank and file workers at a separate rally that radical politics are necessary to win? It's doing a dis-service to syndicalists organizing Starbucks workers and radical unions if the rank and file thinks that black bloc = anarchism.

I'm not against riots in the abstract but I am against these mostly useless little white riots, a riot of your own. In Greece or in the heat of the moment when the working class is actually angry enough to riot, then let's go. Trying to riot to convince workers of radical politics or trying to "spark" a revolution when most workers don't think such a thing would even be desirable let alone possible... is an exercise in helping the provocateurs and helping the ruling class drive a wedge between the working class and the radical class politics that are so desperately needed right now.

[Nolan]

Anarchy guiz fap fap fap

[blake 3:17]

Wouldn't it have been better to use the 'militants' in the "black block" to try and sabotage the meeting and break into the locations etc. rather than just smashing up shops as while I'm sure its good fun it simply will only isolate your movement further from the general public?

There was a large (much larger than I expected) contingent who were moving to shut down the summit. In the midst of the over reported vandalism there were several thousand protesters trying to breach the security fence.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Anarchy guiz fap fap fap

if you have real arguments against what has happened please by all means post them, just don't drag this thread down with stupid troll posts

[The Ben G]

BREAK! SMASH THE STATE! DESTROY!

Oh you Anarchists.

[gorillafuck]

BREAK! SMASH THE STATE! DESTROY!

Oh you Anarchists.

Anarchy guiz fap fap fap
Don't lap up what the bourgeois media says about the demonstrations, please.

[thomasludd]

Why this attitude against the BB and blaming them for violence against the peaceful protesters? Isn't it rational to assume that:

1. Cops will find a way to attack protesters, peaceful or confrontational
2. Non-uniformed cops who are infiltrators are all over the place, on both the confrontational activists and the "peaceful-waiting-for-the-masses-to-revolt" ones.

If some comrades dislike the media projection focused on the property destruction and not the violent dispersal of the peaceful ones (which again will be dramatic and people love martyrs right?) and the"real" issues like the concrete criticisms against capitalism and these transnational entities, then i believe you guys should wake up!

1. Media is NEVER neutral - they choose what's best for their reports, to be acknowledged for their work, for career, money, under the table pay offs for promoting some opinion. If you believe that when you get media to promote our side would be helpful in swaying public opinion or inculcating revolutionary ideas, the best way to go is get allies, sympathizers or cadres in the institution.

2. The noisy ones who condemn the property destruction are mostly (not all) liberals. In my experience here in the Philippines, if you attack a posh shop like Starbucks, the poor people wouldn't care (unless it's the security guard, or the barista who by working in Starbucks feel posh as well)! Some of them would actually like it because you make rich kids frown. They actually get more pissed off if you do those peaceful, long marches that cause traffic jams because they all use public transport.

Just to clarify, if i was in Toronto, i'd be in the peaceful protest side. But i wouldn't condemn the BB's tactics like what you people do. We should respect diversity of tactics. No movement / party / tendency has the monopoly of tactics to be used, and there shouldn't be.

[thomasludd]

There was a large (much larger than I expected) contingent who were moving to shut down the summit. In the midst of the over reported vandalism there were several thousand protesters trying to breach the security fence.

the last time i got news, i think they actually breached the barrier. i'll check it again.

[Emile Armand]

Yea because revolution is what happened today in toronto by smashing Star Buck's window.
No, but it was a revolt. Perhaps if we carry on it will spread, and if it does... Then we have a revolution. I wish my comrades in Toronto the best of luck, perhaps I'll see similar action on my streetcorner by the end of the week.

[blake 3:17]

There`s going to be some pretty interesting legal stuff coming out of this. I was just talking to people detained for 3 hours by riot cops -- protesters hadn`t been doing any thing provocative.


but yes, i can't say seeing a smashed sbux window didn't make me a little satisfied...
__________________


What I found particularly interesting is that the pretty peaceful crowd wasn`t opposed to this kind of property destruction. And when the police cruisers were smashed up people were laughing.

Folks wanting to help should see http://movementdefence.org/ The legalities the police used are very questionable. The Public Works Protection Act, and collusion between the Province of Ontario and the police forces is going to come under a lot of scrutiny. CTV on it: http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100626/mcguinty-police-powers-100626/20100626/?hub=TorontoNewHome

oh and http://www.mediacoop.ca/story/community-organizers-thrown-unmarked-police-vans-en-route-press-conference-targeted-arrests/38

[blake 3:17]

the last time i got news, i think they actually breached the barrier. i'll check it again.

Did anyone get through? I saw folks on the south side of King Street but they were totally boxed in by police. At that spot there were maybe 1500 protesters trying to get through but we were matched by the cops.

On the Friday march we were at pretty even numbers with police and we were a couple of miles from the summit site.

[blake 3:17]

The noisy ones who condemn the property destruction are mostly (not all) liberals.

This is CLC statement: http://www.canadianlabour.ca/national/news/statement-ken-georgetti-president-canadian-labour-congress-vandalism-surrounding-toron

Georgetti is a freaking wanker.

Antivandalism from Toronto Labour Council: http://www.labourcouncil.ca/ The president of labour council, who is very progressive, did take part in the left splinter march and went down to summit site.

CUPE Ontario was the only union to participate in the Friday march.

SEIU, Candian Auto Workers,Steel Workers and Ontario Secondary Schools Teachers unions were very visible yesterday. CUPW, the postal workers union, seems not to have really been present. In the past 30 or 40 years they`ve been the most radical f Candian unions but they`ve been attacked severely.

[ElectricSheep1203]

im going to have to agree with bcbm and thomasludd on this one. I'm happy that the BB was able to cause massive headaches for alot of people. I dont mind the people in their peacefull marches because those people usually have a sense of reason about them, and most times they can get their message across. It's pretty amazing to see how many people are willing to march beside another person with a similar ideologies.

but also, sometimes there are times when shit needs to hit the fan to make people see what's really going on. it's necessary to stir up the bee hive once in a while. what ive noticed alot is people like to complain, but never end up doing anything about it. groups like the BB is like that release. all that pent up anger and energy can be released in a matter of minutes. yeah, maybe all it will do is get you arrested and your stuck with a criminal record, but you did something about your frustrations.

If i was in toronto yesterday i dont know which group i would have been with.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

No, but it was a revolt. Perhaps if we carry on it will spread, and if it does... Then we have a revolution. I wish my comrades in Toronto the best of luck, perhaps I'll see similar action on my streetcorner by the end of the week.
Lol yeah I bet Canada will have a revolution after the black bloc destroyed a few police cars and some windows and after some people got beat by police. We had confrontation in the U.S., England, Germany, Seattle 1999(The most successful one in my opinion),etc, and yet no revolution. Got to love your idealism and you lack of understanding of reality though. Made my day.

[Broletariat]

Lets lighten up for just a moment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fhGneV6rQg

[Salyut]

Some more video for those inclined. (http://www.vimeo.com/12903946)

[Qayin]

Look at the liberals in this thread. Oh no property destruction!

[Foldered]

You people should wait and learn the actual story behind the rioting before throwing around support and condemnation
I am trying to learn the full story and from what I can tell, at this point, I am not for most of the actions committed.

Torching cop cars is one thing, but putting workers (at Starbucks, and McDonalds, and Banks, etc.) in danger is something I am fundamentally against.

Look at the liberals in this thread. Oh no property destruction!
It's not simple property distruction. When innocent people and workers get hurt, I question actions.

[Wanted Man]

Who cares about a few windows anyway. What I'm more afraid of is the practice-fetish advocating a certain routine (summit-hopping and physical confrontation) dominating some segments of the confrontation-camp as well as the practice-fetish (pamphleteering, shouting slogans, carrying banners,blablabla) dominating some segments of the 'social peace' camp.

Both sides create a false dichtomy and entrench their practice in a fetishised spectacle in which only the revolutionary milieu and the state participate with the working class as it's spectator and the corporate and state media as the communication channel. Whilst physical confrontation can be a usefull strategy at times, a sole focus on this is never going to bring about revolutionary change, which requires mass-oriented struggle. The militancy isn't the question here, it's relation to the working class and the effectivity of it's striking against capital is.

Exactly this. What we are seeing is indeed a false dichotomy; just look at this thread. It's either, "ZOMG riot porn" or angry denunciations, as if selling newspapers during impotent, static NGO demonstrations is that much better.

[Fietsketting]

Well sparks can't do shit if you don't have any fuel and since these "activists" aren't doing anything to actually organize people or convince them of radical politics, this is not a spark it is revolutionary masturbation.

If it's true that the trade-unions feel like they have to organize separately from radicals (who presumably have a class view of society) how are these radicals going to convince rank and file workers at a separate rally that radical politics are necessary to win? It's doing a dis-service to syndicalists organizing Starbucks workers and radical unions if the rank and file thinks that black bloc = anarchism.

Your taking it too far now. I am not stating there should be a great revolution coming out off this summit but statements like this do tend to spread out. Look at Seattle. Your making a statement against capitalism. And in a demo those kind of things are a buildup to bigger actions. Storming the fences for example. Sitting in a park listening to speeches from local politicians and some NGO's is not getting us anywhere!

Just look at the counter summit at COP15. Day after day preaching before our own church and having zero impact whatsoever. Thats not working. You have to bring the struggle to them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Agreed*. Demonstrations/riots/strikes, violent or peaceful are all tools and need to be evaluated based on the situation at hand. IMO people who think that torching a cop car or breaking a window is, at all times, the thing that is going to cause a revolution tomorrow are not different from socialists who always argue for a general strike even at some demoralized and disorganized picket-line somewhere.

Personally I think both riots and general strikes have been and are going to be important tools for workers in the class war. I want more of them - and campus and workplace occupations and so on too - in the sense of a working class that is one the offensive; but only if these strategies are effective at moving us forward in the struggle. A general strike call without real organic connections to workers and when most workers are demoralized would only cause the people calling the strike loose credibility and then make it harder in the future for people to trust that a general strike could work.


*Although as someone who has sold newspapers and handed out fliers at boring top-down and demoralized demonstrations called by NGOs:lol:, I would argue that activity is more like networking among radicals and activists, and so trying to make connections to be able to organize other things down the road, is not totally useless (the methods that people try to do this and how well that works is a different question though).

[Fietsketting]

Exactly! But the violance is just a action method and not a goal in itself.

On the subject of pacifism: if i am going to a revolution i bring my sleepingbag, my helmet, boots but i leave my rifle at home cause I think we have to oppose them in a peacefull manner. Its silly to take on actionform out of your arsenal.

[meow]

alf ab.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Your taking it too far now. I am not stating there should be a great revolution coming out off this summit but statements like this do tend to spread out. Look at Seattle. Your making a statement against capitalism. And in a demo those kind of things are a buildup to bigger actions. Storming the fences for example. Sitting in a park listening to speeches from local politicians and some NGO's is not getting us anywhere!

Just look at the counter summit at COP15. Day after day preaching before our own church and having zero impact whatsoever. Thats not working. You have to bring the struggle to them.

Don't take these question as an attack, I'm trying to understand and I'm curious to see how people who do think these tactics are effective in this case think about them:

In the participants view, who is being reached by this event - who is the audience? How is their class consciousness and understanding being effected? How is this directly allowing the working class to organize itself better?

Ok, now my opinions - feel free to attack away :) ...

In Oakland, there was a lot of anger after the cops shot someone while being video taped and the cop wasn't arrested for like a week (he even left the state). People rioted because there was a general sense of anger in the city and the "authorities" were not doing anything. While the riot was organic, it was effective in showing people that the city was not treating a murder by one of their own the same as they would treat a working class or poor person - especially not one of color. So there was a clear demand, wide-spread local anger and the riot along with other mass demonstrations were pretty damn effective in forcing the government to respond to public anger.

In the case of the case of the economy, there is widespread anger, but no clear widespread understanding of where the anger should be directed or what demands can be made immediately. So, it's a different animal IMO, and the opportunity is to expose the plans of the World's powers to "shock doctrine" the world-wide working class at once through austerity in ever industrial country. This concept, unfortunately is not as immediately graspable in Canada right now as, "I just saw that cop murder someone and he's allowed to chill in Tahoe for a week" was in Oakland. In Greece, yes - because the unions and radicals were hella organized beforehand and a huge chunk of workers knew what austerity was all about and were angry that the government was about to defy popular will in order to appease the capitalists.

IMO until the rank and file or people in our communities are already debating "how should we take down the G20/how do we defeat austerity" and the questions of general strikes or violent direct action are organically on the table, then we are jumping the gun to try and do these things ourselves without any connections to the wider movements.

[Rusty Shackleford]

a bunch of malenky lewdies swinging their rookers about and engaging in the ultra-violence with the rozzies?

real horrorshow.

[Fietsketting]

Don't take these question as an attack, I'm trying to understand and I'm curious to see how people who do think these tactics are effective in this case think about them:

None taken mate.


In the participants view, who is being reached by this event - who is the audience? How is their class consciousness and understanding being effected? How is this directly allowing the working class to organize itself better?The entire world will be reached due to the media exposure we obtain when riots occur and crash the idea that the politicians there are attempting to build a better future for us all. Here in Holland for example there is hardly any news about G8/G20 unless there are riots happening. Now our prime minister couldn't leave his hotel to participate at the summit because of those riots and that makes a bigger headline then a protest of 500.000 people. Sad but true.

Working class consciousness and understanding doesn't happen at these kind of things, those happen back at home, in one on one talk and spreading your idea's by initiatives carried out. Remember a summit is a week, real consciousness happens over time by spreading your idea's, not amongst people who agree already that things have to change.


Ok, now my opinions - feel free to attack away :) ...Let me get my black mask! ;)


In Oakland, there was a lot of anger after the cops shot someone while being video taped and the cop wasn't arrested for like a week (he even left the state). People rioted because there was a general sense of anger in the city and the "authorities" were not doing anything. While the riot was organic, it was effective in showing people that the city was not treating a murder by one of their own the same as they would treat a working class or poor person - especially not one of color. So there was a clear demand, wide-spread local anger and the riot along with other mass demonstrations were pretty damn effective in forcing the government to respond to public anger.

In the case of the case of the economy, there is widespread anger, but no clear widespread understanding of where the anger should be directed or what demands can be made immediately. So, it's a different animal IMO, and the opportunity is to expose the plans of the World's powers to "shock doctrine" the world-wide working class at once through austerity in ever industrial country. This concept, unfortunately is not as immediately graspable in Canada right now as, "I just saw that cop murder someone and he's allowed to chill in Tahoe for a week" was in Oakland. In Greece, yes - because the unions and radicals were hella organized beforehand and a huge chunk of workers knew what austerity was all about and were angry that the government was about to defy popular will in order to appease the capitalists.You bring forward that there was a surge of anger. Among these groups there is the same anger but for different reasons. They don't need an horrible incident to be able to focus there anger. The anger against capitalism, and in the case of anarchists to the oppressive state is often enough to cause trouble. Wich i admit, is also a problem.

Sorry i have to hurry a bit on the reply but I am working so!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sorry i have to hurry a bit on the reply but I am working so!Ok, thanks for the responses. Heh, I'm working too - of course it's the graveyard shift over here, so who's going to notice?

[Chambered Word]

Look, I don't consider most violent protests to be constructive and - like what Jimmie was saying - simply talking to people, networking with other socialists and leafletting for meetings is a more effective strategy. I have no qualms with property damage though, why should we be concerned about private property?* Fuck it.

The anarchists managed to disrupt the G20 and that's more than some demonstrations ever achieve.





*When danger to the lives of working-class people is involved, that's a different matter altogether.

[bailey_187]

i love communism but i hate most communists/anarchists

[Fietsketting]

D7OA920pbv8

Peacefull protest always end up like this, dont they?

[AK]

BREAK! SMASH THE STATE! DESTROY!

Oh you Anarchists.
You call yourself an anarcho-trot...

And to anyone who opposes the actions of the Toronto protesters: remember why it is this took place. Not to "smash the state" or to "fuck with the system" - but this occurred because peaceful protest is largely useless, time-wasting, disrupting (as mentioned earlier by someone else) and peaceful protest was met with the same - if not worse - force by the riot police than the destructive protest and there were rules that severely infringed on the rights of protesters on this particular occasion.

[Fietsketting]

GaYbq484abs

"I am peacefull, we are peacefull! Peacefull! Heeeey!"

Thats reality kicking in.

[Chambered Word]

GaYbq484abs

"I am peacefull, we are peacefull! Peacefull! Heeeey!"

Thats reality kicking in.

People who attack demonstrators like that deserve everything they fucking get.

[bailey_187]

And to anyone who opposes the actions of the Toronto protesters: remember why it is this took place. Not to "smash the state" or to "fuck with the system" - but this occurred because peaceful protest is largely useless, time-wasting, disrupting (as mentioned earlier by someone else) and peaceful protest was met with the same - if not worse - force by the riot police than the destructive protest and there were rules that severely infringed on the rights of protesters on this particular occasion.

right so leaving your squat for the day, dressed in all black and kicking in some coffee shop windows is not also "largely useless, time-wasting, disrupting".

Seriously, what do you weirdos think other workers actually think of you when you do this? Maybe the workers of Canada are inspired by the Black Bloc, i dont know, but i know that all the workers/sons and daughters of workers i know in England think you are weirdos and certainly would want nothing to do with you.

Before anyone tries call me a liberal, theres nothing wrong with riots/violent protests, when they actually come from normal working people, but there is everything wrong with this "professional black bloc riot" shit.
Every year at Nottinghill carnivel youth clash with police because they hate the police and dont like the constant harasment. Im sure you have similar stuff in Canada. Why are all the g20 (london) rioters not fighting the police at the end of nottinghill carnival? Because you have no base in the working class, and tbh would stick out like a sore thumb. this shit is pittiful.

[Sasha]

GaYbq484abs

"I am peacefull, we are peacefull! Peacefull! Heeeey!"

Thats reality kicking in.


and that why i dont do sitting blocades.

[Fietsketting]

right so leaving your squat for the day, dressed in all black and kicking in some coffee shop windows is not also "largely useless, time-wasting, disrupting".

Seriously, what do you weirdos think other workers actually think of you when you do this? Maybe the workers of Canada are inspired by the Black Bloc, i dont know, but i know that all the workers/sons and daughters of workers i know in England think you are weirdos and certainly would want nothing to do with you.

And you stalinist ideology is getting you the mass support of the workingclass ofcourse? :rolleyes:


Before anyone tries call me a liberal, theres nothing wrong with riots/violent protests, when they actually come from normal working people, but there is everything wrong with this "professional black bloc riot" shit.


Those people are just as workingclass as you or I am. Black block is a tactic to ensure your safe in numbers, hard if not impossible to identify unless you get caught and offer mutual protection. Amsusing piece of writing about it below. :D


Riot Manifesto (International Anarchist Conspiracy)

Disclaimer: This is a top-secret document and should not be disclosed to anyone outside of your regimented cells. When it has been read, contact your local IAC witch and have her take you through the Black Portal to the Black Citadel. There you will receive further instructions.

Distribute freely.

Instructions for a riot(Black Block).

I: The Black Block is not a group. The Black Block is a tactic. Not a group. We understand the appeal of identifying with what you believe in and finding some solace in a world bent on its own destruction. On the street however, the color Black is there for your protection and to aid you in your quest of attacking the capitalist system, authority, hierarchies and control.

The state supplicating media has played a large role in spreading the myth that the Black Block is a tightly run group similar to the IAC. It is not. The first step you must take is to eradicate the last remnants of that tired illusion. Once that has been done, the true beauty of the magical Black Block can become clear.

If you look like the person next to you and they look like the person next to them…you all look the same. The greater the uniformity the better. Same hat, same jacket, same pants, same glasses, same bags, same everything. The pig’s feeble little eyes and their shiny new cameras merely see one Black mass. As long as you do not get nabbed, they cannot identify you, thus allowing numerous opportunities to engage in Black Magic.

Or at least more opportunities than a haphazard conglomeration of individuals with no unifying understanding of what needs to take place on the streets. And we have all seen many of those. Numerous people with no understanding of magic at all. But once our magical Black Shrouds are fully utilized, we can bewitch entire buildings and curse the animals in blue confronting us.

II: When witches and wizards are engaged with the police directly in front of you, do not run. DO NOT RUN. The police can only effectively target and detain those at the front. Those at the front are making a conscious choice to be there. If you do not wish or are unable to be at the front, support those who are engaged in Magic by NOT RUNNING AWAY. The risk of your arrest is more minimal than you have been lead to believe by the government’s propaganda.

When there are 10 witches and 2 cops, do not let them control you in any way, shape or form. When there are 50 wizards and 10 cops, make them move away from you. When there are 100 witches and wizards and only 20 cops, take out your wands.

If you can prevent a witch or wizard from falling into the evil clutches of the internal military, prevent them from falling into the evil clutches of the internal military. This can be done by magically pulling a comrade away from a pig while simultaneously magically pushing the pig away from them. With your wands. But this can only take place when there are enough of you present to keep each other safe and the police afraid (see above paragraph).

If enough force is being exerted on the police and the front is hundreds of comrades thick (to be adequately safe for most people), objects can be made, with your wands, to fall on the pigs. Objects like candy canes and rubber ducks and carrots and glitter filled balloons. Because all we will ever throw are those things and nothing else. Naturally.

The pressure has to be able to be maintained for this, though. Off-spray from a blast of pepper spray will not disable you. But a full blast covering your entire body will disable you. A shield can turn a lot of a blast into off-spray. Shields, if enchanted enough, can also stop rubber bullets. Pepper spray and rubber bullets are frequently used at the front in the United States. These things can stop you cold without protection. If rubber bullets or pepper spray are the only weapons being used by the police against you, you can protect yourself enough to maintain a front long enough for objects to fall from the sky, conjured by your Black Magic.

Unfortunately one of our greatest creations, Black Powder, fell into the hands of our enemies and is used against us on the streets in the form of concussion grenades. Until we can counter our own spells, we will have to live with it. Eye protection, head protection, and a good eye kept on the police are about all we can come up with.

Motorcycles without pigs on them can be tipped over with the merest flick of a wand. As long as a pig is still on its bicycle, you can keep it pushed back or knock it over. By using your wands. A cop car with no cops around it is a cop car with no cops around it. A cop on the ground is a cop on the ground. To make the connection read the above paragraphs.

III: Not everyone has to be a part of the Black Block. Not everyone has to desert the Black Block. The Black Block is keeping those behind it safe. Numerical support is ESSENTIAL. Not everyone has to be engaged with the police. Numbers always make the piggies gulp a bit harder. The more people engaged the better (in the opinion of the IAC).

The Black Block can be utilized to create massive disturbances which (if repeated and sustained) will affect institutions or city governments monetarily and physically. If a city government cannot sustain itself with the existence of a detention facility, an invasive corporate superstore, a military-aiding port or any other comparable target within its borders, that city will move to flush the disturbance-causer away. This will not cause the police force to disappear or the local government to collapse. But it will put pressure on the national structure of targeted organizations and cause a harmful entity to leave your area. By doing this, the Black Block can aid people who cannot cast spells that day or the day after because they have been cursed by those with power over them.

The Black Block gives you time to get away. The Black Block has lost people at the front keeping the cops at bay, however temporarily. Our Black Shrouds and our skills with magic can protect those not wanting to be involved in aggressive action. We CAN work together. We CAN do more than we have been doing. Respect and autonomy are absolutely vital for cooperation. Otherwise it cannot take place.

Many of us have had awful experiences fighting against “leftists” in front of the cops. Those categorized as being in the “left” who are as equally dissatisfied as us with the state of “resistance” in the US can work with us. And we can work with them. Us witches and wizards travel in the Realm of the Shadows and are generally secretive people. We cannot always be visible to those who wish to see. The tide of oppression in this country keeps us flying our broomsticks at night. But we are there whenever we can be there. And if people wish to help us and magically communicate certain things into the abyss, we will listen. And we will patiently think. And maybe, maybe, maybe, we might be there.

IV: Fascism and Anarchy, authority and harmony, death and life. They rely on their ability to steal from us. We rely on each other. We can be more powerful than them. When we all finally wake we will find them on our backs. And we will knock them off. They have been keeping us asleep for so long and have crushed us so many times over the centuries. We have one advantage over them: we belong to ourselves, they belong to their things.

The age old conflict between Anarchy and Fascism is entering its most critical phase. They are killing the planet and WILL kill it if they are not stopped. Our glitter can only keep us mesmerized for so long. The time to act is NOW, NOW, NOW. We know our upsurge will not happen at once, but the bright future awaits us all. By the end of next summer, we will not be where we are now.

We will be watching lighting fall from the sky and feeling love pulse through the walls that once trapped us. A dead end has been reached and light is beginning to flow through the cracks. We must train our eyes to see those cracks. And make them wider. Alone we can be destroyed. Some of us know that a lot more than others. Alone we can be terrified into the shadows. Together, we can fight them.

This is not “the way.” This is an idea. A general idea which many of us witches and wizards can agree with (ie: wearing the same thing, not running away, moving forward, etc.) The details can mutate on the street and when more Seeing Stones are distributed there can be more communication in the Realm of the Shadows. Many of you know what we have been talking about. This is for you and for everyone else who does not know what we are talking about. What we are talking about, everyone, is this: cooperation.

Not on our terms. The above manifesto discusses what many of us want to do and can do and how others can remain safe around us. Do what you want to do. But please, listen: we have been doing nothing for long enough. Doing nothing to stop the slaughter of millions of people all over the planet and doing nothing to stop the rape of the Earth. Not just in this country but in every country.

The International Anarchist Conspiracy is in fact operating all over the world, from the Philippines to Brazil to Greece. Western Civilization is rotting and its heart, the land of the rosy-hued sunset, is burning. But we are here to fan the flames away from ourselves and towards the monsters who ignited them.

Beloved comrades and lovers, witches and wizards, we beg of you…smile. And then get ready take out your wands, point them at the demons that haunt your daydreams and let the magic pour out of you.

In Love,

The International Anarchist Conspiracy (IAC)

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Fietsketting]

The G20 Summit wasn't a revolution. If you think it was even close you are sorely mistaken.
No one is stating such a thing, at all. Sjeesjh.


All the black bloc did was divert public attention from the peaceful protest and crackdown. The police could have stopped the vandals but they let them destroy stuff. The police outnumbered the vandals 10 to 1. But it was their objective to get them to break stuff so they can crack down on dissent elsewhere in the city.

The vandals were used as tools for the state.Selling magazines is not dissent. Sitting in a park listening to NGO's and liberal politicians is not dissent. And being on a forum where there is a summit happening in your homecountry is not dissent.

They always find a reason to break protests. here in Holland it is usual to claim that protestors are armed with sticks. Yes, thin bamboo sticks with a flag on em but they pretend there baseballbats with nails in em and the media falls for that every time.


and that why i dont do sitting blocades.Not our style b)

[bailey_187]

And you stalinist ideology is getting you the mass support of the workingclass ofcourse? :rolleyes:

Lets be real. NONE OF US have mass working class support. However, we dont look like a bunch of eccentric weirdos on TV.

[Fietsketting]

Lets be real. NONE OF US have mass working class support. However, we dont look like a bunch of eccentric weirdos on TV.

Hehe excellent point.

Waving around hammer and sickles flags or flags with Mao on em is clearly what makes you look like eccentric weirdos as well. ;)

[Pavlov's House Party]

Hehe excellent point.

Waving around hammer and sickles flags or flags with Mao on em is clearly what makes you look like eccentric weirdos as well. ;)

at least it doesn't futher alienate workers from your politics like burning cars and breaking windows. as i mentioned before, in montreal on may day the workers and unions hold their own demonstration seperate from the anarchist dominated one because at the end of the day, the working class doesn't really like being pepper sprayed and arrested. here we can see just how these "black blocs" alienate the workers from revolutionary politics because of their antics.

[Fietsketting]

at least it doesn't futher alienate workers from your politics like burning cars and breaking windows. as i mentioned before, in montreal on may day the workers and unions hold their own demonstration seperate from the anarchist dominated one because at the end of the day, the working class doesn't really like being pepper sprayed and arrested. here we can see just how these "black blocs" alienate the workers from revolutionary politics because of their antics.

Burning a policecar is not an act of vandalism. Its an act againt, capitalism, the state and its repressive nature. Attacking the 'vanguard' of the state is a clearly politicaly motivated action. I agree with you there is a time and place for everything tho.

And, you think the police in Toronto wouldn't have attacked if there wasn't a black block? Look at the movies, there is no black block present there. This must be your first G20 or G8? They -always- find a reason, one way or another. Not acknowledging that makes you look like you have no idea what your talking about.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Lets be real. NONE OF US have mass working class support. However, we dont look like a bunch of eccentric weirdos on TV.So then the question is, how do you begin to build that?

Regardless of the good intentions of liberal people in these movements or the sincere anger of the insurrectionist-oriented people in the movement, it seems like neither are moving the marker down field. These protests seem to be stuck in a holding pattern since 2001. Liberals go to anti-war demos or global justice marches to "bear moral witness" and show their sincere opposition: they are putting a tactic above having a clear strategy and goals. Some of the "black block" seem to be doing the flip-side of the same coin: they are sincerely frustrated in the lack of progress and want to jump right to open conflict with the state - but again, it is making the means and end in of itself (these are generalizations/observations about these groups, so it won't describe everyone).

So my main concern with this topic, is how do we draw the millions of people who are currently looking at capitalism and thinking: "WTF is going on with jobs, with BP, with the entire freeking system that I have been told was infallable!" into self-action? How do we get the people who put their trust in Obama's "change" only to get more staus-quo/the people who thought that Labor was looking out for them to turn their confusion and disorientation into radical conclusions about establishment parties and the system?

This is the ultimate question of the moment because unless those people thinking "WTF" are activated and radicalized, then none of these movements are going to progress beyond holding a sign or breaking a window or two.

[BeerShaman]

Seems a well-organised job. Not so propagandist, but I hope practically beneficial. At least, it can be. :thumbup1:

[it_ain't_me]

I am not stating there should be a great revolution coming out off this summit but statements like this do tend to spread out. Look at Seattle. Your making a statement against capitalism.

i agree 100% that seattle was highly effective and well worth it. seattle made a huge statement and forced people to ask, ''why is anyone so mad at the wto?''. however, the whole tactic of black blocking/window smashing/cop attacking at summits of powerful leaders seems played out, in terms of making any kind of a broad public impression other than ''damn, those anarchists won't stop, guess we need to ramp up the police budget even more.'' i also think that too many of these actions tends to dilute the significance of seattle. (in before someone accuses me of loving the g8, etc.)

[griffjam]

fucking black bloc idiots
the cops basically used them as a tool to disperse the rest of the protestors, allowing them to destroy shop windows unopposed and even left that cop car in the open for them, so they could rush the entire crowd with batons, spray etc.

it's no wonder that in montreal on may day the unions organize a seperate demonstration from these immature idiots


People who spread conspiracy theories about protests are dumbasses! Leave that garbage with Alex Jones.

[piet11111]

People who spread conspiracy theories about protests are dumbasses! Leave that garbage with Alex Jones.

The only problem with your post is that pavlov is right.

The black bloc was essentially herded into the peaceful protesters so the pigs could attack everyone.
To the state the black bloc is a blessing as its the excuse to justify all pig brutality and the expenses and the more violent the black bloc gets the more violence the pigs can use against everyone.

Black bloc tactics are at the time counter-revolutionary and need to be opposed until the whole force of the working class is ready to fight the state.
These people that form the blocs need to be educated to put their energy into constructive struggle because obviously their heart is in the right place.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

i agree 100% that seattle was highly effective and well worth it. seattle made a huge statement and forced people to ask, ''why is anyone so mad at the wto?''. however, the whole tactic of black blocking/window smashing/cop attacking at summits of powerful leaders seems played out, in terms of making any kind of a broad public impression other than ''damn, those anarchists won't stop, guess we need to ramp up the police budget even more.'' i also think that too many of these actions tends to dilute the significance of seattle. (in before someone accuses me of loving the g8, etc.)
But remember that in Seattle the black bloc there, the people bent on just wanting to smash windows were not a significant part of the protest, they did not make it a successful one. All they did was probably scare the police making them more ruthless. Seattle was successful because the people who showed up came from many different movements(Environmentalists, labor unions, etc) but they all realized globalization was part of the problem that they needed to confront. They came up with a plan to block the meeting and did that successfully without a bunch of people going around breaking windows, burning police cars, etc.

[Foldered]

The black bloc was essentially herded into the peaceful protesters so the pigs could attack everyone.
To the state the black bloc is a blessing as its the excuse to justify all pig brutality and the expenses and the more violent the black bloc gets the more violence the pigs can use against everyone.
Not only that, but from discussions I've had with "liberal"-types, it seems to make it easier to justify the violations that the police commited and are committing against protesters who were unrelated to black bloc actions.
Furthermore, the results of their tactics will be (and are being) used to justify the insane security costs.

So then the question is, how do you begin to build that?

Well, one step would be not hurting (financially and physically) the very people you want support from.

[blake 3:17]

Today!

> ******************************************
> JAIL SOLIDARITY RALLY!
> Toronto Condemns Police Violence
>
> Monday, June 28th
> 5:30pm
> Police Headquarters,
> 40 College Street (at Yonge Street)
>
> Speakers:
> Naomi Klein
> Ben Powless
> Judy Rebick
> David McNally
> Abeer Majeed
> Testimonies from people who've been brutalized by police
>
> Over the past two days, police have rounded and arrested up hundreds
> of people. They have been denied access to lawyers, telephones, food
> and water, and held in deplorable conditions in makeshift steel cages.
> Many have been beaten in the streets and in their homes; shot at with
> rubber bullets and tear gas; some have been sent to hospital with
> severe injuries. Hundreds are still in custody as of Sunday night.
>
> We need to get our people out. We need to take our city back from the
> armed fortress that it has been turned into.
>
> We will let the police know that we will not tolerate the arrests,
> beatings and attempt to intimidate the people of Toronto. Our
> community stands with the people whose lives have been disrupted by
> the G20, and by police violence. We will demand that all those
> arrested be released, and released now!
>
>

[Barry Lyndon]

Nice to see 'revolutionaries' here lining up to demonize the Black Bloc.

I am a Marxist and I fully support the anarchists. I may not agree with all their tactics, but I admire their spirit, their refusal to be penned up in 'free speech' zones and impotently march in circles waving little signs. Anything that disrupts the G20 and impedes the ability of the capitalist elites to have their conference on how best to rape the world is fine by me. As long as no workers actually get hurt, I have no problem with smashing businesses.

This line about about the 'Black Bloc' becoming an excuse for the capitalist state to pump the police with billions of dollars is a heap of bullshit. Yeah, right, if there was no Black Bloc, the capitalist state would spend all that money on providing free healthcare, education, and a puppy for every child. No, actually, they would figure out some other way to waste it.

As for 'alienating' people- people who are more 'alienated' by a Starbucks window being smashed or a burning police car then little brown and black children chained to sweatshop assembly lines are not our allies and never will be.

[Wolf Larson]

Here in Oakland the cops would shoot you in the head dead. Or the back.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I don't get this. What about the importance of class unity? Now I'm not the type of person who helps a family member bury the body of an innocent person, but I'd hardly put the criticism on the black bloc.

The reality is the peaceful protests accomplish nothing. Peaceful protesting can gain public sympathetic and pressure politicians. How? Will people vote in one of the other parties who will do the same things? It's shameful how quick to criticize the block people are. I support them because my default position is support. I am not strongly opinionated in my support, but I support them by default.

This is what people should do. If you're being harassed by a gang and you decide to avoid conflict with them, fine. If one of your friends has had enough and goes in to fight, what do you do? Do you stand back and call him a coward later? You have to know they're coming for you next. All it takes is one violent protester to make police violence inevitable, and that will "always" happen. Stand up for yourself, for crying out loud. Anyone who willingly lets someone assault them... I just don't get it. And then you criticize other people for giving them "just cause." They didn't do anything such thing. These people need to get their heads out of the sand and look at reality.

You notice how view black bloc protesters it took to challenge the police? And how few police it took to challenge the peaceful protesters? It shows the relative strength of the tactics being used here.

I fail to see how peaceful protest would accomplish much. Now there is something to be said for gaining public sympathy, but you're never going to gain public sympathy for a revolution if you concede that non-violent means are the only acceptable options.

Non-violent protest can be used in certain ways, but I'd say the bloc showed people a lot more of the negative aspects of the police than we might have seen otherwise. The people who somehow oppose the bloc over violence never supported them to begin with. The bloc aren't losing supporters they're just making objections more vocal. Reason will stand above the rhetoric and show people how things need to operate.

[Psy]

I don't get this. What about the importance of class unity? Now I'm not the type of person who helps a family member bury the body of an innocent person, but I'd hardly put the criticism on the black bloc.

The reality is the peaceful protests accomplish nothing. Peaceful protesting can gain public sympathetic and pressure politicians. How? Will people vote in one of the other parties who will do the same things? It's shameful how quick to criticize the block people are. I support them because my default position is support. I am not strongly opinionated in my support, but I support them by default.

This is what people should do. If you're being harassed by a gang and you decide to avoid conflict with them, fine. If one of your friends has had enough and goes in to fight, what do you do? Do you stand back and call him a coward later? You have to know they're coming for you next. All it takes is one violent protester to make police violence inevitable, and that will "always" happen. Stand up for yourself, for crying out loud. Anyone who willingly lets someone assault them... I just don't get it. And then you criticize other people for giving them "just cause." They didn't do anything such thing. These people need to get their heads out of the sand and look at reality.

You notice how view black bloc protesters it took to challenge the police? And how few police it took to challenge the peaceful protesters? It shows the relative strength of the tactics being used here.

I fail to see how peaceful protest would accomplish much. Now there is something to be said for gaining public sympathy, but you're never going to gain public sympathy for a revolution if you concede that non-violent means are the only acceptable options.

Non-violent protest can be used in certain ways, but I'd say the bloc showed people a lot more of the negative aspects of the police than we might have seen otherwise. The people who somehow oppose the bloc over violence never supported them to begin with. The bloc aren't losing supporters they're just making objections more vocal. Reason will stand above the rhetoric and show people how things need to operate.
What did the black bloc accomplish? They gave the police a casus belli against the protesters yet there was noting even resembling the beginnings of a revolutionary army to even attempt to defend the protesters thus the actions of the black bloc amounted to setting off a stampede of police on defenseless protesters. The black bloc even allowed the riot police to crush the strike at the Novotel hotel under the justification they may be hiding among the strikers.

[M-26-7]

What did the black bloc accomplish?

They gave the police a casus belli against the protesters yet there was noting even resembling the beginnings of a revolutionary army to even attempt to defend the protesters thus the actions of the black bloc amounted to setting off a stampede of police on defenseless protesters.

The two sentences in this quote are two different questions. Let's keep them separate.

What did the black bloc accomplish? This is the part where the burden of proof is on those who approve of or advocate black bloc tactics--it's on them to show that black blocking actually achieves something. As much of a visceral satisfaction as I get seeing a burning police car and the fact that the most powerful leaders in the world are having to be barricaded off from those they supposedly lead, this gut level satisfaction doesn't in itself prove that breaking a Starbucks window or burning a cop car achieves much of anything in these circumstances.

But saying that the black bloc gave the police "a casus belli against the protesters" is a separate question--and for this question, the burden of proof is on you. I don't believe you can prove this assertion, but at the very least, you have to try, or else you are just saying things with nothing to back them up. What evidence do you have that the police violence against the more peaceful protesters had anything to do with the black blockers? Do you think that cops normally hesitate to bust skulls on peaceful demonstrators?

[Psy]

The two sentences in this quote are two different questions. Let's keep them separate.

What did the black bloc accomplish? This is the part where the burden of proof is on those who approve of or advocate black bloc tactics--it's on them to show that black blocking actually achieves something. As much of a visceral satisfaction as I get seeing a burning police car and the fact that the most powerful leaders in the world are having to be barricaded off from those they supposedly lead, this gut level satisfaction doesn't in itself prove that breaking a Starbucks window or burning a cop car achieves much of anything in these circumstances.

But saying that the black bloc gave the police "a casus belli against the protesters" is a separate question--and for this question, the burden of proof is on you. I don't believe you can prove this assertion, but at the very least, you have to try, or else you are just saying things with nothing to back them up. What evidence do you have that the police violence against the more peaceful protesters had anything to do with the black blockers? Do you think that cops normally hesitate to bust skulls on peaceful demonstrators?
The police used the black bloc as a casus belli and still claim that is how they did not break the law as the block bloc turned the protest into a riot thus the police had extra rights.

Without a riot the police would have probably still harassed the protesters but the police would not have had the legal justification to brutally crush the protest.

[bailey_187]

As for 'alienating' people- people who are more 'alienated' by a Starbucks window being smashed or a burning police car then little brown and black children chained to sweatshop assembly lines are not our allies and never will be.

Most people do recognise this as one of the many horrors in the world, however, weirdos in doc martins and all black smashing shit up isnt going to convince people that Communism is the solution.

This stuff is artificial. When kids at Nottinghill Carnival etc fight the police, thats genuine acts of working class resistance, becuase people pissed at police harrasing them etc. This g20 shit is pretty much staged, in the sense that this and that group decide they will riot on this day wearing this.

[Wolf Larson]

Most people do recognise this as one of the many horrors in the world, however, weirdos in doc martins and all black smashing shit up isnt going to convince people that Communism is the solution.

This stuff is artificial. When kids at Nottinghill Carnival etc fight the police, thats genuine acts of working class resistance, becuase people pissed at police harrasing them etc. This g20 shit is pretty much staged, in the sense that this and that group decide they will riot on this day wearing this.
You would think a Leninist would get a hard on at the idea of a vanguard leading the people to glory :)
What if the blac bloc changed their names to communist party? LOL

[Psy]

You would think a Leninist would get a hard on at the idea of a vanguard leading the people to glory :)
What if the blac bloc changed their names to communist party? LOL
Lenin also thought the role of a vanguard was to hold people like the black bloc back so the revolution does not get crushed before it is able to defend itself.

[Wolf Larson]

Lenin also thought the role of a vanguard was to hold people like the black bloc back so the revolution does not get crushed before it is able to defend itself.

Vanguard is as vanguard does. Lead the people to glory. Lenin didn't want the actual people to hold power and he got what he wanted. A pre mature totalitarian 'revolution' where the power was taken from the workers councils (Soviets) and handed to the centralized political party which took the place of the bourgeoisie. That worked out great didn't it? Lets talk about that for a while why don't we?

[Psy]

Vanguard is as vanguard does. Lead the people to glory. Lenin didn't want the actual people to hold power and he got what he wanted. A pre mature totalitarian 'revolution' where the power was taken from the workers councils (Soviets) and handed to the centralized political party which took the place of the bourgeoisie. That worked out great didn't it? Lets talk about that for a while why don't we?
Not holding back worked wonders for the German revolutions:rolleyes:

[bailey_187]

You would think a Leninist would get a hard on at the idea of a vanguard leading the people to glory :)
What if the blac bloc changed their names to communist party? LOL

except these fools are not leading anyone. The vanguard does not go and riot for a media spectacle once a year.

[Fietsketting]

What did the black bloc accomplish? They gave the police a casus belli against the protesters yet there was noting even resembling the beginnings of a revolutionary army to even attempt to defend the protesters thus the actions of the black bloc amounted to setting off a stampede of police on defenseless protesters. The black bloc even allowed the riot police to crush the strike at the Novotel hotel under the justification they may be hiding among the strikers.

I find it disturbing that people here still seem too think that the state needs an excuse to remove protesters. You call yourself revolutionaries but at the same time let your actions be controlled by the state you so despise. You can gather at a spot because they let you, you walk a route they have put down for you and they are, in what should be some of our finest moments, still in charge. There game, there rules.

Why would a revolutionairy walk the same walk as the NGO's take or social democrats, liberals or whoever? Or even have a counter summit wich sounds really nice but in fact is leftists preaching against other leftists that things have to change.

And this is only a week, its a media moment. Real revolutionairy work happens in your hometown, talk to your fellow workers, your friends, discuss, offer flyers and other sort of information. Build up those networks.

[Wolf Larson]

except these fools are not leading anyone. The vanguard does not go and riot for a media spectacle once a year.

No it just takes power from the workers and hands it to a new ruling class :)

[Psy]

I find it disturbing that people here still seem too think that the state needs an excuse to remove protesters.

But why give them that excuse? We don't have a revolutionary army to challenge the authority of the police so why give them a excuse to fight us?



You call yourself revolutionaries but at the same time let your actions be controlled by the state you so despise. You can gather at a spot because they let you, you walk a route they have put down for you and they are, in what should be some of our finest moments, still in charge. There game, there rules.

Why would a revolutionairy walk the same walk as the NGO's take or social democrats, liberals or whoever? Or even have a counter summit wich sounds really nice but in fact is leftists preaching against other leftists that things have to change.

You know what would have really hurt the G20, a general strike. Workers shutting Toronto down would have hurt the world ruling class far more then the little property damage done at G20.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I find it disturbing that people here still seem too think that the state needs an excuse to remove protesters. You call yourself revolutionaries but at the same time let your actions be controlled by the state you so despise. You can gather at a spot because they let you, you walk a route they have put down for you and they are, in what should be some of our finest moments, still in charge. There game, there rules.

Why would a revolutionairy walk the same walk as the NGO's take or social democrats, liberals or whoever? Or even have a counter summit wich sounds really nice but in fact is leftists preaching against other leftists that things have to change.

And this is only a week, its a media moment. Real revolutionairy work happens in your hometown, talk to your fellow workers, your friends, discuss, offer flyers and other sort of information. Build up those networks.
The point isn't that we are against protesting where we aren't supposed to, I agree we shouldn't protest at some zone on the other side of town so that nothing is really being challenged. But there's a fine line between marching to the summit to try and stop it and what looks like breaking shit for fun. Those people had to break a Starbuck's window to fight the G20 summit? If I didn't know any better I would think the anarchists biggest enemy is glass since they spent all their time smashing it.

[Fietsketting]

But why give them that excuse? We don't have a revolutionary army to challenge the authority of the police so why give them a excuse to fight us?

Thats the point. They don't need a black block to remove all protesters. They will make things up anyway. Protesters carrying flags are dangerous cause they wield sticks or took an agressive stance. Then thousands of people, the'll find a reason. Sure, it makes it easyer for them when a black block is on the move but having a protest at there discretion (sp?) is not an option either in my opinion.

You could say that a black block creates an autonomous zone in wich we can attack the targets we normaly walk by and just think how we feel about them but can't act upon. Its a media stage in wich a small group can make themselves heard. When there is a G20 and nothing happens.. then you get three lines of text in the newspaper, when the prime minister can't go to the summit due to riots. Then you have at least a tiny impact. Hunderd thousand people on the streets is great but its not news, sadly enough.

Social Peace is in the intrests of the state(s), not ours.




You what would have really hurt the G20, a general strike. Workers shutting Toronto down would have hurt the world ruling class far more then the little property damage done at G20.

But we don't have that luxury at the moment.

[Fietsketting]

The point isn't that we are against protesting where we aren't supposed to, I agree we shouldn't protest at some zone on the other side of town so that nothing is really being challenged. But there's a fine line between marching to the summit to try and stop it and what looks like breaking shit for fun. Those people had to break a Starbuck's window to fight the G20 summit? If I didn't know any better I would think the anarchists biggest enemy is glass since they spent all their time smashing it.

Sorry, was typing out an reply and missed yours.

You state that you don't mind that people are protesting where the sate doesn't want them. Fine. Great. At the moment you move away from the route set out for you you have become a problem. Your not in the place where the police wants you and they will remove you. Technicly thats the same thing the black block does, but they are prepared and expect a struggle wich seriously lacks in a peacefull demo.

Secondly, this black block did not seem that big and seems to lack the dynamics to punch a hole into the barrier.

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,890337,00.jpg

This is a black block in rostock in 2008, thousands of people. Not something the police can run down easyly and therefore is a major problem. Genua as well where large groups appeared out of nowhere and attempted to breach the zones around the centre.

[Foldered]

As for 'alienating' people- people who are more 'alienated' by a Starbucks window being smashed or a burning police car then little brown and black children chained to sweatshop assembly lines are not our allies and never will be.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be very happy to be sweeping up shards of glass (instead of making drinks) and trying to calm down irate customers because a group of people are being "anti-corporate."

I like what they stand for and I like why they demonstrated the way they did, but I just simply can't support the lack of results it produces while putting workers at risk.

I meant alienating workers.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Sorry, was typing out an reply and missed yours.

You state that you don't mind that people are protesting where the sate doesn't want them. Fine. Great. At the moment you move away from the route set out for you you have become a problem. Your not in the place where the police wants you and they will remove you. Technicly thats the same thing the black block does, but they are prepared and expect a struggle wich seriously lacks in a peacefull demo.

Secondly, this black block did not seem that big and seems to lack the dynamics to punch a hole into the barrier.

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,890337,00.jpg

This is a black block in rostock in 2008, thousands of people. Not something the police can run down easyly and therefore is a major problem. Genua as well where large groups appeared out of nowhere and attempted to breach the zones around the centre.
My problem isn't black bloc tactics but more along the lines of this was just senseless violence or at least misdirected violence where they knew they couldn't win but still chose to go out and break stuff. Which to me says they weren't really interested in doing anything except going out to break stuff, like it's a fetish to go break a Starbucks window(Why btw is it always a Starbucks?).

[Wolf Larson]

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be very happy to be sweeping up shards of glass (instead of making drinks) and trying to calm down irate customers because a group of people are being "anti-corporate."


I like what they stand for and I like why they demonstrated the way they did, but I just simply can't support the lack of results it produces while putting workers at risk.

I meant alienating workers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Don't tread on my capitalist masters?

;)

[Fietsketting]

My problem isn't black bloc tactics but more along the lines of this was just senseless violence or at least misdirected violence where they knew they couldn't win but still chose to go out and break stuff. Which to me says they weren't really interested in doing anything except going out to break stuff, like it's a fetish to go break a Starbucks window(Why btw is it always a Starbucks?).

I haven't been to Toronto so I have no clear sight on what has taken place but too me it seems this black bloc wasn't that big, nor organised as i haven't seen any pics of a bloc protected by banners all around advancing as is usually the case. With that in mind i guess they went for the attempt oto break threw and when that failed went for the large .. uhm franchises? Not sure how to put that.

Starbucks is a clear target as there has been an ongoing conflict (near-minimum wage, are strongly anti-union, have an unhappy workforce, etc) with their workers against the company and wich is fought by the IWW but also by several sections of the IWA like the CNT in Spain or the FAU in Germany. There not attacking small shops, there after the big companies.

[Wolf Larson]

My problem isn't black bloc tactics but more along the lines of this was just senseless violence or at least misdirected violence where they knew they couldn't win but still chose to go out and break stuff. Which to me says they weren't really interested in doing anything except going out to break stuff, like it's a fetish to go break a Starbucks window(Why btw is it always a Starbucks?).
An act of metaphorical propaganda meant to 'break the spell' your capitalist masters have you under. Not you specifically...you're obviously not unaware of reality. I can see how vandalizing private property can put most sleeping wage slaves off but it's better than nothing...better than chanting sutras at some Buddhist temple. Pacifism is psychological slavery. No revolution will be achieved via vandalizing private property though....I get your point but you should be more angry with the workers who REFUSE to educate themselves. Workers under the spell.

[Fietsketting]

Pacifism is psychological slavery.

And elitist as well. Many people around the globe do not have the luxury to be pacifists. Its a typical western thing. Tell that to a revolutionairy who lives under a regime that could take his parents away when they find out he's involved in such a thing, or where para militairy groups attack villages and rape the woman. These things happen and pacifism will not help.


Also, they call it Class Struggle for a reason!

[thälmann]

by the way: this black bloc on the pic during g8 in germany had about 10.000 comrades. a lot of, or most of the groups organized this bloc would call themselve communists. it was really good seeing the very brutal german riotpolice have to run.

but i think in this case you can see the difference between this example and the g20 in canada. in canada there were single people and groups running around smashing windows. in rostock 2007 there was a big, well organized and disciplined bloc at the main demontration with nice banners etc. and after that the attacking police made a bad experience...

[Wolf Larson]

And elitist as well. Many people around the globe do not have the luxury to be pacifists. Its a typical western thing. Tell that to a revolutionairy who lives under a regime that could take his parents away when they find out he's involved in such a thing, or where para militairy groups attack villages and rape the woman. These things happen and pacifism will not help.


Also, they call it Class Struggle for a reason!

Ya, I agree with Albert Meltzer's opinion of Gandhi :)

[Psy]

Thats the point. They don't need a black block to remove all protesters. They will make things up anyway. Protesters carrying flags are dangerous cause they wield sticks or took an agressive stance. Then thousands of people, the'll find a reason. Sure, it makes it easyer for them when a black block is on the move but having a protest at there discretion (sp?) is not an option either in my opinion.

Again we didn't have any protection to repel police thus from a strategic standpoint it makes no as you are exposing protesters to a counter-attack you have no hope in dealing with. It would be different if the G20 was held in a situation like Paris May 1968 where protesters could not only defend themselves from police but was able to go on large offensives against the police.



You could say that a black block creates an autonomous zone in wich we can attack the targets we normaly walk by and just think how we feel about them but can't act upon. Its a media stage in wich a small group can make themselves heard. When there is a G20 and nothing happens.. then you get three lines of text in the newspaper, when the prime minister can't go to the summit due to riots. Then you have at least a tiny impact. Hunderd thousand people on the streets is great but its not news, sadly enough.

You kidding? Behind the riot police was heavy armed federal police (RCMP) with snipers and behind them was the Canadian army with light armor units (did the black bloc bring anti-tank weapons to deal with them?). Even a battle hardened revolutionary army would not want to mess with the inner defense lines of G20 unless they really had to. Think about that, even if we had a armed force like the POUM and CNT in Toronto at the G20 it would have been mostly suicide for them to break through the barricades.





But we don't have that luxury at the moment.
That is what we need to work on. That is what would cause the media to focus us, image if during the G20 they got no electricity or water at the convention center and the hotels in the security zone.

[Foldered]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Don't tread on my capitalist masters?

;)
Yes, I'm sure it was the capitalist masters sweeping up glass.
Cute.

[AK]

right so leaving your squat for the day, dressed in all black and kicking in some coffee shop windows is not also "largely useless, time-wasting, disrupting".

Seriously, what do you weirdos think other workers actually think of you when you do this? Maybe the workers of Canada are inspired by the Black Bloc, i dont know, but i know that all the workers/sons and daughters of workers i know in England think you are weirdos and certainly would want nothing to do with you.

Before anyone tries call me a liberal, theres nothing wrong with riots/violent protests, when they actually come from normal working people, but there is everything wrong with this "professional black bloc riot" shit.
Every year at Nottinghill carnivel youth clash with police because they hate the police and dont like the constant harasment. Im sure you have similar stuff in Canada. Why are all the g20 (london) rioters not fighting the police at the end of nottinghill carnival? Because you have no base in the working class, and tbh would stick out like a sore thumb. this shit is pittiful.
Sorry, I meant peaceful protest was largely useless on this occasion. Normally I'm against violent protests - what with their mindless vandalism and all - but I supported this one for the reasons why it happened: the liberties and rights of every protester were seriously infringed on, peaceful protesters were met with the same heavy-handedness and it disrupted the G20 summit much better than any picket line.

[Wolf Larson]

Yes, I'm sure it was the capitalist masters sweeping up glass.
Cute.
Sweeping glass..... serving coffee....whats the difference? At the end of the day they have no choice but to sell themselves to a master in order to survive.

So long as they remain completely unaware of that fact it doesn't matter if they are prostituting themselves by sweeping glass or serving coffee. If anything I'd be sweeping glass with a smile knowing I don't have to call anyone sir or mam in the meantime. :)

I think Starbucks might fire me if I refereed to the customers as comrade :)

[thomasludd]

I still don't get it...

This thread is still split on the tactics used by the anarchists in Toronto. Is it really supposed to be that dichotomized between advocates of a specific tactic? Are both sides fanboys or something? This almost sounds like who's better in fighting crime, Batman or Superman!

Are there other people here (like me for instance), who would prefer to go to the peaceful protest march, but still sympathize and support the Black Bloc actions? Can't you people recognize that activists and revolutionaries are diverse and incidentally tactics that are maximized are diverse as well?

To the ones who support property destruction: i agree that property destruction is a valid tactic, but it should be done with a purpose - and "fun" as a purpose isn't enough for me. It's part of it, not because of satisfying our desire to destroy, but because it contributes to our struggle. I'm with the critics on this because we should acknowledge that there are people who just join a black bloc who are definitely just practice hooliganism for the sake of it. We must be vigilant of this.

To the ones criticizing the BB: i see some of your points as valid, but this confuses me - since i notice that most of you are M-Ls who believe in vanguard parties and revolutionary armies. I can't seem to understand your eagerness to jump to the support of guerrilla groups. Is it your standard that when a leftist movement is organized on this level they become more legitimate than "black clad hooligans?" Don't you realize that these guerrillas kill people? And news flash - a lot of innocent people have been killed! I'm sorry but i consider killing MORE violent than property destruction. Why this double standard? Don't get me wrong, i support all initiatives of revolt / revolution, but what i hate is this sectarian nonsense (i see it as sectarian because i can conclude that you people are only against the BB because you didn't organize it yourself).

[Jimmie Higgins]

This almost sounds like who's better in fighting crime, Batman or Superman!:lol:Spiderman, obviously.

I'd say it's "who's a better vigilante: Batman who uses empirical evidence, deductive reasoning, has body armor, tools and prepartation, or that US guy who got on a plane to Pakistan to try and kill Ossama Bin Laden with a samouri sword?"

Is it enough to be impatient and want to act just because you need to, or are other methods better suited right now? I don't blame the BB at all for anything, the real villains are the people inside the G20 and the cops who were paid a billion dollars to crack heads, and round people up. I do, however think it's good to have a debate about what is most effective or if the tactics are right for the situation.

As I have said imo, since the working class is disoriented by the crisis and the ruling class is preparing to push austerity and wage cuts throughout the industrial world, reaching out to as many workers as we can right now is urgently needed so we can organize ourselves like the Greek workers have and get ready for the real fights ahead. BB tactics while the workers aren't convinced of what the G8/20 are doing right now and why it is an attack on all of us, is futile and does more to address our own personal frustrations than build a stronger movement.

[Red Saxon]

Oh how I'd love to be in Toronto right now just to get video of all of this.

[Psy]

To the ones criticizing the BB: i see some of your points as valid, but this confuses me - since i notice that most of you are M-Ls who believe in vanguard parties and revolutionary armies. I can't seem to understand your eagerness to jump to the support of guerrilla groups. Is it your standard that when a leftist movement is organized on this level they become more legitimate than "black clad hooligans?" Don't you realize that these guerrillas kill people? And news flash - a lot of innocent people have been killed! I'm sorry but i consider killing MORE violent than property destruction. Why this double standard? Don't get me wrong, i support all initiatives of revolt / revolution, but what i hate is this sectarian nonsense (i see it as sectarian because i can conclude that you people are only against the BB because you didn't organize it yourself).
Think Paris May 1968, do you think property damage is what caused the French Ruling class to shake in fear? No it was the wide spread strikes, factory occupations and the very beginnings of a revolutionary army armed only with rocks, sticks and molotov cocktails breaking the back of the Paris police force with massive human waves assaults that overwhelmed police positions all over Paris. Militarily the only mistake of the revolutionaries of Paris May 1968 was not concentrating their forces for occupying the state buildings once the defensive lines of the Paris police forces were broken and their remaining forces were in full retreat.

Yet that was Paris May 1968 not Toronto June 2010 the G20 meant the beourgisie had far more defenses in place then in Paris 1968.

[blake 3:17]

The demonstration this afternoon and evening had about 3000 people at it. Very diverse, with many differences of opinion but all firmly opposed to the G20 agenda and the effed up policing over the weekend.

On television today, the head of the police union let it known that they were under orders to NOT ARREST people commiting vandalism. People who had done nothing illegal were arrested.

The attention on vandalism is basically a way to avoid talking about the thousands of people who took part in the unsanctioned marches that did have the aim of actually disrupting the summit.

[blake 3:17]

Here's a mainstream media report on today's demo: http://www.thestar.com/article/829854--demonstrators-protest-police-tactics-and-alleged-brutality

Numbers are under reported.

There were a lot of people at it who hadn't participated on the weekend but were disgusted by the policing and the different levels of government responses to the protests.

Edited to add: Got this earlier but hadn't watched it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsnGpIRQzkU There's some very good footage from the melee, and some suggestions that police were involved in the Black Bloc. Police were at the anti-SPP demo in 2007 dressed as black bloc folks. Dave Coles from the CEP union challenged them and it was later revealed they were Surete Du Quebec. We'll see...

This a piece on the conditions in the detention centre. http://rabble.ca/news/2010/06/conditions-detainees-629-eastern-avenue-are-illegal-immoral-and-dangerous

[meow]

black bloc it up. fuck newspaper selling!

[Chambered Word]

My problem isn't black bloc tactics but more along the lines of this was just senseless violence or at least misdirected violence where they knew they couldn't win but still chose to go out and break stuff. Which to me says they weren't really interested in doing anything except going out to break stuff, like it's a fetish to go break a Starbucks window(Why btw is it always a Starbucks?).

I have to agree with you. While violence might achieve more than peaceful protests sometimes i.e they are more effective at disrupting meetings like the G20 there is absolutely no point in randomly smashing buildings.


Vanguard is as vanguard does. Lead the people to glory. Lenin didn't want the actual people to hold power and he got what he wanted. A pre mature totalitarian 'revolution' where the power was taken from the workers councils (Soviets) and handed to the centralized political party which took the place of the bourgeoisie. That worked out great didn't it? Lets talk about that for a while why don't we?

Sorry Wolf but this is complete bullshit. Are you so ignorant of history that you believe the October Revolution was just a Bolshevik Party coup?


An act of metaphorical propaganda meant to 'break the spell' your capitalist masters have you under. Not you specifically...you're obviously not unaware of reality. I can see how vandalizing private property can put most sleeping wage slaves off but it's better than nothing...better than chanting sutras at some Buddhist temple. Pacifism is psychological slavery. No revolution will be achieved via vandalizing private property though....I get your point but you should be more angry with the workers who REFUSE to educate themselves. Workers under the spell.

Mass class consciousness leading to revolutionary struggle occurs through material conditions, and it's elitist to think that everyone should have already come across Marxist theory or be politically oriented. Workers' revolutions in history haven't come about by a bunch of workers sitting down and reading Capital.

I should add that the reason the vanguard party - a body of the most class conscious workers in a society - exists is to encourage revolutionary consciousness in the rest of the workers.


Sweeping glass..... serving coffee....whats the difference? At the end of the day they have no choice but to sell themselves to a master in order to survive.

So long as they remain completely unaware of that fact it doesn't matter if they are prostituting themselves by sweeping glass or serving coffee. If anything I'd be sweeping glass with a smile knowing I don't have to call anyone sir or mam in the meantime. :)

I think Starbucks might fire me if I refereed to the customers as comrade :)

Uh, and how about the people struggling to make a living or the teens who are saving up for their future? :rolleyes: I could really give much less of a shit if you black blockers went and fucked up some posh stores in the ritzy part of town.

[bailey_187]

how do you know they are not? i would suggest that there is a cross over in the two groups. how much? i dont know. but, to simply say that they dont go to the youth carnivel?

Maybe some are. However, the type of people i see at the G20 are not the people i see i Nottinghill. Unless anarchists trade in their all black clothing and doc martins, cut their hair, wear 'fashionable' (i dont want say fashionable, but you know what i mean, right?) clothes, and stop saying comrade for the day - im pretty sure its not the same people for the most part.

[Fietsketting]

Maybe some are. However, the type of people i see at the G20 are not the people i see i Nottinghill. Unless anarchists trade in their all black clothing and doc martins, cut their hair, wear 'fashionable' (i dont want say fashionable, but you know what i mean, right?) clothes, and stop saying comrade for the day - im pretty sure its not the same people for the most part.
How is fighting at a festival revolutionairy?

[Chambered Word]

Maybe some are. However, the type of people i see at the G20 are not the people i see i Nottinghill. Unless anarchists trade in their all black clothing and doc martins, cut their hair, wear 'fashionable' (i dont want say fashionable, but you know what i mean, right?) clothes, and stop saying comrade for the day - im pretty sure its not the same people for the most part.

Doc Martens* and fuck you I like them.

[bailey_187]

How is fighting at a festival revolutionairy?

Its not. Neither is the Black Bloc's antics. The difference is the violence towards police and property at Nottinghill is not some staged planned riot but an actual response by young people in London who are pissed at constant police harasment at carnival and in their normal lives.

[bricolage]

Its not. Neither is the Black Bloc's antics. The difference is the violence towards police and property at Nottinghill is not some staged planned riot but an actual response by young people in London who are pissed at constant police harasment at carnival and in their normal lives.

I'm not sure it really is, seeing as it happens every year and those doing it build up to it before hand (whether they are those fighting the feds or the police themselves) it is in many ways just as staged as G20 type stuff. Replace black hoods with various bandanas.
Kids throwing rocks at police cars on the street corner is an actual response. Carnival, G20 is all just the logic of the spectacle.

[bailey_187]

I'm not sure it really is, seeing as it happens every year and those doing it build up to it before hand (whether they are those fighting the feds or the police themselves) it is in many ways just as staged as G20 type stuff. Replace black hoods with various bandanas.
Kids throwing rocks at police cars on the street corner is an actual response. Carnival, G20 is all just the logic of the spectacle.

yeah but these are not political activists like Black Blockers. For the most part they are normal people with zero politics, but they recognise the police as enemy.

[bricolage]

yeah but these are not political activists like Black Blockers. For the most part they are normal people with zero politics, but they recognise the police as enemy.

I'd say those in the black bloc quite obviously recognise the police as an enemy too.
Also I think it is a myth that those that participate in black blocs are;
a) all anarchists
b) not normal people eg. are just full time activists
c) only politically active when they are in a black bloc

I don't think black bloc is a particularly amazing tactic nor do I think it is going to bring about communism but I do think I can have a (albeit small) purpose at times. However I know people that have been in lots of black blocs and they are normal people doing normal jobs living normal lives. If anything the black bloc serves its biggest role as a form of escape from this monotony.

I don't think this then makes black bloc or kids at carnival any more or less 'revolutionary' or 'radical' than each other. I don't think either are 'revolutionary', but I think there is potential that lies in both.

I have been in a black bloc and I have been to carnival, I know people that have done the same, have done neither, have done one, have done the other. Such is life.

[Psy]

the black bloc gives no extra excus to the police to attack other protesters in other places. not at all.

oh, and the black bloc "allowed" the riot police to crust the strike? the police did that without any justification needed. the real reason they attacked the strike was, i guess, because it made them embaressed. they were ashamed that the strike was stopping the diplomats from having clean rooms.

The Black Bloc was how the police justified their actions to the media and legal systems and the police has the point as the police has the legal right to do mass arrests in riots and protesters have no rights during a riot. This is why the police pays agitators to turn protests violent thus all Black Bloc do the job of police agitators for free.



give them that excuse? they dont need an excuse. the police will attack protesters whether or not they are peaceful or not.

You seem to forget that a bourgeois state wants to maintain a facade of a democracy.




as for a strike, the novatel people tried that. and they got attacked. and the black bloc get attacked for not deffending them, and they get attacked for deffending other protests. they cant win.
You call that defending? Where were the defensive lines of the revolutionaries like in Paris May 1968? Where were the barricades erected by militant workers to protect strikers again like Paris May 1968?

[Barry Lyndon]

I think the sectarians on this board who are denouncing the Blac Bloc because their not Maoists or whatever should remember that the police don't care whether your anarchist, Maoist, or Trotskyist when their beating the shit out of you.

[mcg]

Hey, the black bloc didn't beat the other activists the police did. The Black bloc is not responsible for police brutality. How free would the police be to beat and attack protestors if they thought no-one would ever fight back? As for their targets, I'm sure they would have attacked the G-8 leaders if they could. Banks, police cars, starbucks, bourgeois shops, will have to do.

[BeerShaman]

We don't need to stop doing this or that. We need to do more things. Stop condemning one another. I think that from what anyone does, the interested person is about to make a summing up and a decision about what to do. We'll see who expresses the working class better on the revolution times. The non-violent riot way, or the violenent riot way?!
P.s. Some people here suck!!!:mad:

[samofshs]

anyone heard of yippees? WAYYYYYYYYY better than black bloc :laugh:

[Psy]

Hey, the black bloc didn't beat the other activists the police did. The Black bloc is not responsible for police brutality. How free would the police be to beat and attack protestors if they thought no-one would ever fight back? As for their targets, I'm sure they would have attacked the G-8 leaders if they could. Banks, police cars, starbucks, bourgeois shops, will have to do.
The police operations at G20 were not hampered in anyway. The riot police were not scared of the black bloc, it was clear the police were itching for a fight, just waiting for a reason to extend the security zone (where they basically had marshal law) and once the Black Bloc gave them the justification they were looking for they crushed protesters even in the designated protesting zone using the excuse the black bloc could be hiding anywhere thus they basically declared everyone in Toronto a suspect, in fact more people were detained at the G20 in Toronto then were detained under the War Measures act during the October FLQ crisis of 1970.

[blake 3:17]

It's turned out the police DIDN'T have extra powers... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/police-admit-deliberately-misleading-public-on-expanded-security-fence-law/article1622864/

Kinda nice to be able to make up the rules.

[blake 3:17]

The other part of the policing I want to know is how scripted the pre emptive arrests were. The folks accused of the RBC firebombing, the couple who are accused of preparing a bomb, and the arrest of SOAR (which police did infiltrate) folks all happened at relatively convenient times.

A left leader in the Steelworkers (a very conservative union) has gone on record criticizing the police: http://newsocialist.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=219:steelworker-official-condemns-police-tactics&catid=53:blog&Itemid=68

This in contrast from most other labour leaders.

[blake 3:17]

Just got this. Shows a bunch of undercovers running behind the lines. Includes a couple in Black Bloc style. Others dressed part of the union crowd. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeG_t9abaSU&feature=player_embedded

[Wolf Larson]

Just got this. Shows a bunch of undercovers running behind the lines. Includes a couple in Black Bloc style. Others dressed part of the union crowd. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeG_t9abaSU&feature=player_embedded

it was quick but yes, i saw the person in the black hoodie congregating with the cops behind the cops line.

after living in SF and oakland for ten or so years i've seen all manner of shifty behavior from undercover cops. they're big on entrapment. always trying to instigate 'crime'.

a bunch of burnt face idiots :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQyhLWfCB3E

[Foldered]

I've read black bloc-type literature before and it mentioned something about police officers joining in; is this actually common practice at the hands of police? (For those more familiar with demonstrations than I am.)

[blake 3:17]

We know it happened in Quebec a couple of years ago. Many of us suspect that it happened this weekend in Toronto. The video I posted above seems to prove it. None of this is to say that Black Blocs are simple police creations.

Policing for the summit was done through many different police agencies. Canada tends to have less divisions within the police than in the US, but there are turf wars. Wacky stuff tends to happen at the middle and upper levels of individual police forces. I'm not aware of Toronto cops infiltrating left groups (doesn't mean it hasn't happened), it's usually Ontario Provincial Police, RCMP and CSIS agents who get into this stuff.

[blake 3:17]

Apologies for multiple posts. It's been busy.


I've read black bloc-type literature before and it mentioned something about police officers joining in; is this actually common practice at the hands of police?

It's not uncommon. I don't think anybody knows how frequently it occurs. A number of groups here have had people in them act as police agents. Their exact roles usually never come to light -- some are actually police officers, many others would have either economic relationships or are getting charges withdrawn or lightened for co operation. I think is a basic problem of secret organization that doesn't do coherent ideological work.

Certain tactics tend to draw in people with their hearts in the right places but otherwise naive about how social change happens.

A long standing problem I've seen with anarchist and anarchist oriented organizations is that the informality allows for pretty fucked up people having a lot of extra influence with no accountibility. I'm not trying to smear anarchists, most of whom I think are great, but the organizational methods sometimes facilitate screwed up behaviour.

From the Globe and Mail's Business section: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/toronto/police-g20-tactics-give-toronto-a-black-eye/article1622024/

[Emile Armand]

Lol yeah I bet Canada will have a revolution after the black bloc destroyed a few police cars and some windows and after some people got beat by police. We had confrontation in the U.S., England, Germany, Seattle 1999(The most successful one in my opinion),etc, and yet no revolution. Got to love your idealism and you lack of understanding of reality though. Made my day.
Look at what's happening in Greece, did It not start the same way? Do you not think this could be the beginning of a revolution? I think its better we do something than just sit back and talk about revolution, that's all we do you know, we sit back and talk about it, or we hand out pamphlets. The pen may be stronger than the sword but I say its about time.

[BeerShaman]

Look at what's happening in Greece, did It not start the same way? Do you not think this could be the beginning of a revolution? I think its better we do something than just sit back and talk about revolution, that's all we do you know, we sit back and talk about it, or we hand out pamphlets. The pen may be stronger than the sword but I say its about time.
:thumbup::closedeyes::thumbup1:Gave us what we needed!

[Foldered]

It's not uncommon. I don't think anybody knows how frequently it occurs. A number of groups here have had people in them act as police agents. Their exact roles usually never come to light -- some are actually police officers, many others would have either economic relationships or are getting charges withdrawn or lightened for co operation. I think is a basic problem of secret organization that doesn't do coherent ideological work.

What I mean is that are there officers doing sorts of sting operations by joining the black bloc and keeping tabs on people.

[Fietsketting]

What I mean is that are there officers doing sorts of sting operations by joining the black bloc and keeping tabs on people.

Wich means the black bloc tactic is considered the main focuspoint and therefore a large threat. Point is that at large summits there will be civi cops among our ranks because they are prepared as well. Just look at how they arrested groups at COP 15, those guys were recruited on there size and were training 6 months in advance!

Organising in affinity groups still remains the key to an sucessfull action.

[Psy]

Wich means the black bloc tactic is considered the main focuspoint and therefore a large threat. Point is that at large summits there will be civi cops among our ranks because they are prepared as well. Just look at how they arrested groups at COP 15, those guys were recruited on there size and were training 6 months in advance!

Or the Black Bloc was just a good target of opportunity for the police.



Organising in affinity groups still remains the key to an sucessfull action.
I see the opposite, the only way to counter a full division worth of police (they had around 14,000 riot police in Toronto at GTO) would be to have a division worth (of course the more numbers would have given us a huge advantage) of workers organized in a revolutionary army with barricades so the revolutionary army could repel advances of riot police with ease if the police expends all it organization and strength trying to storm our barricades we could then counter-attack and give a good ass kicking like the Paris police got in Paris May 1968.

[Fietsketting]

Or the Black Bloc was just a good target of opportunity for the police.

Ofcourse, there the troublemakers.



I see the opposite, the only way to counter a full division worth of police (they had around 14,000 riot police in Toronto at GTO) would be to have a division worth (of course the more numbers would have given us a huge advantage) of workers organized in a revolutionary army with barricades so the revolutionary army could repel advances of riot police with ease if the police expends all it organization and strength trying to storm our barricades we could then counter-attack and give a good ass kicking like the Paris police got in Paris May 1968.

Your dreaming. And on top off that, if those people would join such an revolutionairy 'army' then the media will call them... the black bloc!

[Psy]

Your dreaming.
Paris May 1968, there you had the numbers with basic cohesion that could have easily have evolved into a revolutionary army.



And on top off that, if those people would join such an revolutionairy 'army' then the media will call them... the black bloc!
So? The difference would be instead of the riot police crushing protests all around Toronto they would have had their advances impeded by barricades erected by the revolutionary army and the revolutionary army easily defending the bottleneck of riot police trying to break through (if we the workers were smart enough to take industrial gas masks to the G20 making them immune to tear gas and industrial ear protection making them immune to sonic weapons)

[bcbm]

the only way to counter a full division worth of police (they had around 14,000 riot police in Toronto at GTO) would be to have a division worth (of course the more numbers would have given us a huge advantage) of workers organized in a revolutionary army with barricades so the revolutionary army could repel advances of riot police with ease if the police expends all it organization and strength trying to storm our barricades we could then counter-attack and give a good ass kicking like the Paris police got in Paris May 1968.

fap fap fap fap fap

but do you ever come?

[Psy]

fap fap fap fap fap

but do you ever come?
What I describe is pretty much Paris May 1968 with more organization. Are you suggesting it is unreasonable to look at Paris May 1968 (but learning from mistakes of Paris May 1968) as the ideal reaction to the G20?

[this is an invasion]

Yeah great, workers at that Starbuck's store in question will be getting no income coming in while their being repaired. It has really inspired them to join the IWW.


When workers go on strike, they also don't have any income coming in. You probably don't support that shit either, huh?

[this is an invasion]

Paris May 1968, there you had the numbers with basic cohesion that could have easily have evolved into a revolutionary army.

You have very poor knowledge about what sort of organizing and projects went on during May 68.

[bcbm]

also, this article (http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Tactics+thugs+might+inspire+others/3214391/story.html)...



"Within the population, there are small groups that are attracted to the violence," Gerolymatos said. "They want to tell their friends: 'I duked it out with cops.' "


Gerolymatos said while Canada doesn't have as much history with so-called anarchist groups compared with Europe, the radicalization of small protest groups could grow -fuelled by poverty and a sense of alienation.


Perhaps one way to avoid such violent confrontations in the future is to hold global summits in more remote locations, he said.


Canadians got their first taste of anarchists' tactics during the Olympic Winter Games when a small group of black-clad individuals smashed storefronts and trashed newspaper boxes in downtown Vancouver.



small violent protesting minority might not go away? move to more remote locations? did this protest jump back in time a decade or something?

and first taste of anarchists at the vancouver olympics? come on
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/31/102810931_34d3f52795.jpg

pretty much proves my point that nobody will remember this shit in a week though, so all the naysayers can keep it to themselves.

[bcbm]

What I describe is pretty much Paris May 1968 with more organization. Are you suggesting it is unreasonable to look at Paris May 1968 (but learning from mistakes of Paris May 1968) as the ideal reaction to the G20?

weren't you saying like a page or two ago that even a solid revolutionary army wouldn't go toe to toe with the soldiers they had at the g20? and now you want said revolutionary army ("more organization" lol) to be fighting the riot cops? and they won't just call in the army? seriously, you must smoke more weed than i do man, you're fried.

[Psy]

You have very poor knowledge about what sort of organizing and projects went on during May 68.
Did you even read what I said?

"Paris May 1968, there you had the numbers with basic cohesion that could have easily have evolved into a revolutionary army."

[this is an invasion]

Did you even read what I said?

"Paris May 1968, there you had the numbers with basic cohesion that could have easily have evolved into a revolutionary army."

I read what you said, nerd.

The type of organizing in May 68 would not and could not have turned into a "revolutionary army" (srsly knock off the militarist obsession).

[Psy]

weren't you saying like a page or two ago that even a solid revolutionary army wouldn't go toe to toe with the soldiers they had at the g20? and now you want said revolutionary army ("more organization" lol) to be fighting the riot cops? and they won't just call in the army? seriously, you must smoke more weed than i do man, you're fried.
Yes I did say a battle hardened revolutionary army wouldn't fight its way into G20 but we are talking about a revolutionary army not storming the G20 barricades they would mostly be sitting behind their own barricades, taking riot police into custody that were stupid enough to storm their barricades. I highly doubt the army would be able to counter-attack as their commanders would not want them to abandoned their fortified positions that protected bourgeoisie state leaders, odds are the army would stay put till the leaders were out of there.

[Psy]

I read what you said, nerd.

The type of organizing in May 68 would not and could not have turned into a "revolutionary army" (srsly knock off the militarist obsession).
Look up the CNT-AIT during the Spanish Civil-War they were the same type of organization as those that occupied the factories in Paris May 1968 (lets not forget there was some Trotskyist factory occupations in Paris May 1968).

[this is an invasion]

Look up the CNT-AIT during the Spanish Civil-War they were the same type of organization as those that occupied the factories in Paris May 1968 (lets not forget there was some Trotskyist factory occupations in Paris May 1968).

The Spanish Civil War and May 68 are not the same. And many of the occupations either happened outside of unions, or were co-opted by unions to make it look like the strikes and occupations were called by the unions. This was done so that the unions would be able to end them when they saw fit, and to keep workers from talking to radical students.

[Psy]

The Spanish Civil War and May 68 are not the same. And many of the occupations either happened outside of unions, or were co-opted by unions to make it look like the strikes and occupations were called by the unions. This was done so that the unions would be able to end them when they saw fit, and to keep workers from talking to radical students.
Yet the CNT was not a traditional unionist organization they were anarchists, anarchists that formed a revolutionary army which is not the first time anarchists organized a revolutionary army.

[Foldered]

Organising in affinity groups still remains the key to an sucessfull action.
Yeah, I'm not criticizing the group, I was just curious as to how often police infiltration actually occurs.

[bcbm]

Yes I did say a battle hardened revolutionary army wouldn't fight its way into G20 but we are talking about a revolutionary army not storming the G20 barricades they would mostly be sitting behind their own barricades, taking riot police into custody that were stupid enough to storm their barricades. I highly doubt the army would be able to counter-attack as their commanders would not want them to abandoned their fortified positions that protected bourgeoisie state leaders, odds are the army would stay put till the leaders were out of there.

okay, so you're saying you definitely smoke more weed than i do?

[Emile Armand]

You call yourself an anarcho-trot...

And to anyone who opposes the actions of the Toronto protesters: remember why it is this took place. Not to "smash the state" or to "fuck with the system" - but this occurred because peaceful protest is largely useless, time-wasting, disrupting (as mentioned earlier by someone else) and peaceful protest was met with the same - if not worse - force by the riot police than the destructive protest and there were rules that severely infringed on the rights of protesters on this particular occasion.
That's essentially what I was trying to say. Can you imagine if all Che Guevara ever did was hold up a picket sign? What if Vladimir Lenin just handed out fliers?

[Psy]

okay, so you're saying you definitely smoke more weed than i do?
Why would the army leave the bourgeois leaders defenseless to assault a fortified force beyond the G20's fortifications that are currently not a serious threat to the world leaders? Remember a hand full of fortified Vietnam veterans in Detroit was able to crushed the Michigan National Guard in July 1967 and the US Army had to send in armor to root them out so think how hard it would be to uproot a full division worth revolutionary army troops (around 15,000 fighters) with modern guerrilla means to take out light armor and helicopters.

I think most sane officers would be more concerned with getting the world leaders out before even thinking about esculating the conflict with a revolutionary army that has a division of troops fortified in a urban environment.

[bcbm]

you're really missing the forest for the trees.

[Ravachol]

Yes I did say a battle hardened revolutionary army wouldn't fight its way into G20 but we are talking about a revolutionary army not storming the G20 barricades


Where are you even gonna find that shit? Becoming 'battle hardened' requires years of professional training with military grade weapons and training facilities, that's hard to do for a small group let alone a revolutionary army. Or are you suggesting we hire blackwater USA to do our dirty work? :rolleyes:



they would mostly be sitting behind their own barricades, taking riot police into custody that were stupid enough to storm their barricades.


I'd rather F5 4chan all day long than sit behind barricades in Toronto defending nothing at fucking all from riot cops waiting for the army to storm in and crap all over me.



I highly doubt the army would be able to counter-attack as their commanders would not want them to abandoned their fortified positions that protected bourgeoisie state leaders, odds are the army would stay put till the leaders were out of there.

Who cares about state leaders? As I said, Capital has no 'head', there's a thousand 'heads' for each you chop off. What you want to choke off is the body, the logic propagating Capital and it's hegemony.


Why would the army leave the bourgeois leaders defenseless to assault a fortified force beyond the G20's fortifications that are currently not a serious threat to the world leaders? Remember a hand full of fortified Vietnam veterans in Detroit was able to crushed the Michigan National Guard in July 1967 and the US Army had to send in armor to root them out so think how hard it would be to uproot a full division worth revolutionary army troops (around 15,000 fighters) with modern guerrilla means to take out light armor and helicopters.

I think most sane officers would be more concerned with getting the world leaders out before even thinking about esculating the conflict with a revolutionary army that has a division of troops fortified in a urban environment.

Even if this scenario would work on it's own terms, which it won't and even if it would lead us any closer to communism, which again, it won't: where are you going to get those battle hardened motherfuckers and their military grade weapons? I sure hope not here on revleft...

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Fietsketting]

Paris May 1968, there you had the numbers with basic cohesion that could have easily have evolved into a revolutionary army.


So? The difference would be instead of the riot police crushing protests all around Toronto they would have had their advances impeded by barricades erected by the revolutionary army and the revolutionary army easily defending the bottleneck of riot police trying to break through (if we the workers were smart enough to take industrial gas masks to the G20 making them immune to tear gas and industrial ear protection making them immune to sonic weapons)

I think you have to step out off the whole militairy bubble, really.

[Chambered Word]

Where do the forklifts come into all this?

[Psy]

Where are you even gonna find that shit? Becoming 'battle hardened' requires years of professional training with military grade weapons and training facilities, that's hard to do for a small group let alone a revolutionary army. Or are you suggesting we hire blackwater USA to do our dirty work? :rolleyes:

Defending from fortified positions in a urban enviorment is much easier the assaulting fortified positions in a urban enviorment.



I'd rather F5 4chan all day long than sit behind barricades in Toronto defending nothing at fucking all from riot cops waiting for the army to storm in and crap all over me.

It would be defending the protests and strikes from the riot police, making it so before riot police could arrest anyone they would have to scale barricade erected by militant construction worker defended by barrages of rocks fired over the barricades and fire hoses fired from gaps in the barricades, past that a full division of militant workers ready to kick their ass already in formation that the riot police won't be due to the bottleneck caused by the barricades.

See why I say this is much easier then assaulting the G20.



Who cares about state leaders?

The state leaders espically the canadian leaders that was hosting the G20 who was responsible for their security.



As I said, Capital has no 'head', there's a thousand 'heads' for each you chop off. What you want to choke off is the body, the logic propagating Capital and it's hegemony.

Capitalists depend on the beourgisie state for protection thus taking the state is taking the over the defensive mechnism for capitalism.

Yet in this cause that would not be the goal, the goal would be to defend a general strike (that was also missing).



Even if this scenario would work on it's own terms, which it won't and even if it would lead us any closer to communism, which again, it won't: where are you going to get those battle hardened motherfuckers and their military grade weapons? I sure hope not here on revleft...
This scenario does not require a battle hardened revolutionary army as it would not be trying to storm the fortification of the G20 but defending its own fortification.

[Psy]

Where do the forklifts come into all this?
Fortifying positions via mechanization of the construction of building barricades equal or larger then those erected for the G20.

[Barry Lyndon]

It has been well documented that police infiltration had occurred and that the whole "riot" was engineered by the cops. The police cars themselves were suspiciously in the middle of the street with no one around it to defend it. Anyone defending the black bloc is also defending cops. If they defend pigs then they are pigs.

What incredible documents you must have access to. Mind presenting them to the rest of us? Take some time to shit them out, since you obviously keep them in your ass.

[this is an invasion]

It has been well documented that police infiltration had occurred and that the whole "riot" was engineered by the cops. The police cars themselves were suspiciously in the middle of the street with no one around it to defend it. Anyone defending the black bloc is also defending cops. If they defend pigs then they are pigs.

Jesus Christ, you are insane.

[Delenda Carthago]

GaYbq484abs

"I am peacefull, we are peacefull! Peacefull! Heeeey!"

Thats reality kicking in.
lmao

[Rusty Shackleford]

Anarchists and\or those who support this strategy against capitalism: collectively come up with a position or statement.

Marxist-Leninists and\or those who oppose this strategy against capitalism: collectively come up with a position or statement.


this argument comes up whenever there is a riot. G8\20 Pittsburgh, May 1st 2010, Countless Greek Riots, WTO 99, G20 Toronto, Geneva, London, Rostock and so on... maybe get two clear positions and have those as the source for debate?

theres more than enoguh practical experience on both sides to clearly write on the subject. so instead of bickering, come up with a statement that each side agrees with respectively then let it be the final battle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jK-NcRmVcw

[Foldered]

At this point (as a Starbucks worker), I'm way more pissed off at the company for staying open, despite the lockdown, which endagers workers, than I am at black bloc tactics.

[this is an invasion]

Anarchists and\or those who support this strategy against capitalism: collectively come up with a position or statement.

Marxist-Leninists and\or those who oppose this strategy against capitalism: collectively come up with a position or statement.


this argument comes up whenever there is a riot. G8\20 Pittsburgh, May 1st 2010, Countless Greek Riots, WTO 99, G20 Toronto, Geneva, London, Rostock and so on... maybe get two clear positions and have those as the source for debate?

theres more than enoguh practical experience on both sides to clearly write on the subject. so instead of bickering, come up with a statement that each side agrees with respectively then let it be the final battle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jK-NcRmVcw

No. People do things for different reasons.

It only comes down to this: If you don't like the Black Bloc, then don't participate in it.

[Rusty Shackleford]

No. People do things for different reasons.

It only comes down to this: If you don't like the Black Bloc, then don't participate in it.


im neutral on the topic. im somewhat partial to riot porn and really have no major objection to people smashing up windows or burning cop cars, but i also prefer making a mass movement with organized and less fragmented demonstrations. i like both sides. but i dont participate in both. i participate in peaceful demos.

the whole reason for my post was to just make an argument from each side that was basically solid and can be used in later debate instead of starting from the ground up every single fucking time. thne again i could just leave these threads alone.

[Psy]

No. People do things for different reasons.

It only comes down to this: If you don't like the Black Bloc, then don't participate in it.
And what happenes if we ever can deploy a large revolutionary army, the two tactics contradict each other. On one hand you have a revolutionary army protecting property so workers can occupy it and on the other Black Bloc attacking property before workers can take it (with the help of the revolutionary army).

Yes a revolutionary army requires huge class consciousness to even exist in any meaningful form yet are suppose to have a popular revolution with such huge class consciousness?

[bcbm]

It has been well documented that police infiltration had occurred and that the whole "riot" was engineered by the cops.

shouldn't be much trouble to provide those documents then. i assume you are suggesting the police organized and operated the local anarchist groups that were planning that demo, as well as all of those that came in from elsewhere, including the us?


The police cars themselves were suspiciously in the middle of the street with no one around it to defend it.nOjGdvju-po

0:44. very suspicious indeed.


Anyone defending the black bloc is also defending cops. If they defend pigs then they are pigs.this is called badjacketing and it has no place within "revolutionary" (the quotes are for you) politics. check yourself, rat.

oh, and this article (http://www.anarchistnews.org/?q=node/11614) attacks these "omg it was the cops" arguments.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree - we shouldn't be calling eachother cops or allowing crazy rumors or whatnot to give a space for the real cops to turn people against eachother.

However, I think it does reveal a serious flaw with these tactics - the anonymous and non-collective decision making that these tactics produce does not help build a strong movement where people trust each-other. In the student budget-cut movement, this kind of thing has been somewhat poisonous and caused suspicion of radicals and given leverage to the cops and administration to claim that anarchist, radicals in general, have a separate agenda from workers and students. If things are done in isolation, in small cliques, and in an un-open manner, then there is no evidence to the contrary to refute the divisive claims of cops and bosses and administrators.

[Foldered]

0:44. very suspicious indeed.
:laugh:

Anyway, to suggest that the police basically "let" this happen is taking things a little too far, if you ask me. It's pretty obvious from the videos.

[bcbm]

given leverage to the cops and administration to claim that anarchist, radicals in general, have a separate agenda from workers and students

well, is the desire to occupy space and begin transforming social relations now without mediation (that is, "demand nothing") a separate demand from "save our public education?"

[Hiratsuka]

At this point (as a Starbucks worker), I'm way more pissed off at the company for staying open, despite the lockdown, which endagers workers, than I am at black bloc tactics.

Didn't you know? Raging pseudo-militarists love latte grandes.

Heh, I kid. Sorta. ;)

[Hiratsuka]

im somewhat partial to riot porn and really have no major objection to people smashing up windows or burning cop cars

Question: did they ruin personal possessions? Small businesses? I don't really understand the appeal of rioting.

[this is an invasion]

And what happenes if we ever can deploy a large revolutionary army, the two tactics contradict each other. On one hand you have a revolutionary army protecting property so workers can occupy it and on the other Black Bloc attacking property before workers can take it (with the help of the revolutionary army).

Yes a revolutionary army requires huge class consciousness to even exist in any meaningful form yet are suppose to have a popular revolution with such huge class consciousness?

God shut the fuck up about revolutionary armies, you quack. You're never going to deploy shit.

[this is an invasion]

Question: did they ruin personal possessions? Small businesses?

Do not care about petit-bourgeois businesses.

But given where these riots take place, I really doubt "Cynthia's Flower Shop" will be under fire.

[thomasludd]

And what happenes if we ever can deploy a large revolutionary army, the two tactics contradict each other. On one hand you have a revolutionary army protecting property so workers can occupy it and on the other Black Bloc attacking property before workers can take it (with the help of the revolutionary army).

Yes a revolutionary army requires huge class consciousness to even exist in any meaningful form yet are suppose to have a popular revolution with such huge class consciousness?

If the time comes that this super-red-revolutionary-army exists and is ready to occupy the factories (this is so neutral to anarchists and MLs because i didn't say taking state power, unless MLS have problems with occupied factories, my bad), do you really think that the Black blockers would oppose them??? I'm very sure that these "hooligans" will be at the forefront of the occupation themselves and would be the most dedicated "soldiers" of this "army". Unless of course you want the militia to only wear red and not black. :)

[Chambered Word]

Fortifying positions via mechanization of the construction of building barricades equal or larger then those erected for the G20.

Oh thanks, for a moment I thought the revolution was going to fail or something! :thumbup1:

Black blocs aren't going to even form if there's some big revolutionary army coming in because otherwise they risk being shot. Also nobody gives a shit about your fantasies. :rolleyes:

[Psy]

God shut the fuck up about revolutionary armies, you quack. You're never going to deploy shit.
Then there will never be a popular revolution especially if capitalists armies don't defect to revolutionary armies.


If the time comes that this super-red-revolutionary-army exists and is ready to occupy the factories (this is so neutral to anarchists and MLs because i didn't say taking state power, unless MLS have problems with occupied factories, my bad), do you really think that the Black blockers would oppose them??? I'm very sure that these "hooligans" will be at the forefront of the occupation themselves and would be the most dedicated "soldiers" of this "army". Unless of course you want the militia to only wear red and not black. :)
They may object the revolutionary army taking a defensive stance, troops building fortifications rather then beating up police with most of their action being weak police forces cut off on the wrong side of the barricades.


Oh thanks, for a moment I thought the revolution was going to fail or something! :thumbup1:

Black blocs aren't going to even form if there's some big revolutionary army coming in because otherwise they risk being shot. Also nobody gives a shit about your fantasies. :rolleyes:
Then I guess they would have bolted from Paris May 1968 if revolutionaries refused to fade away when the Paris Police got its ass brutally kicked and the French Army was deploying.

[this is an invasion]

Then there will never be a popular revolution especially if capitalists armies don't defect to revolutionary armies.


They may object the revolutionary army taking a defensive stance, troops building fortifications rather then beating up police with most of their action being weak police forces cut off on the wrong side of the barricades.


Then I guess they would have bolted from Paris May 1968 if revolutionaries refused to fade away when the Paris Police got its ass brutally kicked and the French Army was deploying.

You should be restricted to Chit Chat

[Psy]

You should be restricted to Chit Chat
Why?

It is impossible to have a popular revolution without a army as it limits the movement to only being able ask for concessions from the capitalist class as we would lack any body of men/women to force them to conceded to our demands.

No revolution in history has been able to defend their gains without a army, without revolutionary armies in the US back in late 19th century there would be unions in the USA so why is the only vehicle to revolution that has ever worked stupid?

[bcbm]

Why?

because you're a wingnut.


It is impossible the have a popular revolution with a army as it limits the movement to only asking for concessions from the capitalist class as we would lack any body of men/women to force them to conceded to our demands.

if the economy is paralyzed and huge portions of the territory are occupied they will listen. or rather, it won't matter if they listen or not because they will already be irrelevant.


No revolution in history has been able to defend their gains without a army, without revolutionary armies in the US back in late 19th century there would be unions in the USA so what why is the only vehicle to revolution that has ever worked stupid?

but all of those revolutions failed and becoming a military struggle instead of a social struggle seems to have a lot to do with it.

[Psy]

because you're a wingnut.

For wanting militant workers defended rather then slaughtered by counter-revolutionary forces that will react violently?



if the economy is paralyzed and huge portions of the territory are occupied they will listen. or rather, it won't matter if they listen or not because they will already be irrelevant.

Armies have huge stockpiles, they can support themselves long enough to counter-attack and retake means of production through violence.



but all of those revolutions failed and becoming a military struggle instead of a social struggle seems to have a lot to do with it.
You still can't ignore the military aspect as the capitalists won't. If there is no revolutionary army the capitalists would consider themselves lucky and order their troops to terrorize the workers back into submission.

[bcbm]

i'm not getting into this shit again, you have fun beating off on tanks or whatever it is you do.

[Psy]

i'm not getting into this shit again, you have fun beating off on tanks or whatever it is you do.
Well that is what you are going to be doing if there is a revolution yet no army to defend you from counter-revolutionary forces. The capitalists armies will love your denouncement of revolutionary armies as they beat workers back into submission.

[bcbm]

Well that is what you are going to be doing if there is a revolution yet no army to defend you from counter-revolutionary forces. The capitalists armies will love your denouncement of revolutionary armies as they beat workers back into submission.

we don't need an army to beat them.

[Psy]

we don't need an army to beat them.
So how do you beat a capitalist army that has a stockpile of supplies thus they can attack during general strikes?

How would workers maintain their organization with a occupation capitalist army executing their leadership?

It is not so much a question of needing a revolutionary army to beat the capitalists but needing a revolutionary army to prevent the revolution getting snuffed out by the capitalist war machines.

[this is an invasion]

"No revolution is peaceful, but the military dimension is not the central one. The question is not whether the proles finally decide to break into the armories, but whether they unleash what they are: commodified beings who no longer can and no longer want to exist as commodities, and whose revolt explodes the logic of capitalism. Barricades and machine guns flow from this "weapon". The more vital the social realm, the more the use of guns and the number of casualties will diminish. A communist revolution will never resemble a slaughter: not from any non-violent principle, but because it will be a revolution only by subverting more than by actually destroying the professional military. To imagine a proletarian front facing off against a bourgeois front is to conceive the proletariat in bourgeois terms, on the model of a political revolution or a war (seizing someone's power, occupying their territory). In so doing, one reintroduces everything that the insurrectionary moment had overwhelmed: hierarchy, a respect for specialists, for knowledge that Knows, and for techniques to solve problems, in short for everything that diminishes the common man. In the service of the state, the working- class "militia man" invariably evolves into a "soldier". In Spain, from the fall of 1936 onward, the revolution dissolved into the war effort, and into a kind of combat typical of states: a war of fronts."

Dauve When Insurrections Die



How would workers maintain their organization with a occupation capitalist army executing their leadership?


By not having leaders.

[Psy]

"No revolution is peaceful, but the military dimension is not the central one. The question is not whether the proles finally decide to break into the armories, but whether they unleash what they are: commodified beings who no longer can and no longer want to exist as commodities, and whose revolt explodes the logic of capitalism. Barricades and machine guns flow from this "weapon". The more vital the social realm, the more the use of guns and the number of casualties will diminish. A communist revolution will never resemble a slaughter: not from any non-violent principle, but because it will be a revolution only by subverting more than by actually destroying the professional military. To imagine a proletarian front facing off against a bourgeois front is to conceive the proletariat in bourgeois terms, on the model of a political revolution or a war (seizing someone's power, occupying their territory). In so doing, one reintroduces everything that the insurrectionary moment had overwhelmed: hierarchy, a respect for specialists, for knowledge that Knows, and for techniques to solve problems, in short for everything that diminishes the common man. In the service of the state, the working- class "militia man" invariably evolves into a "soldier". In Spain, from the fall of 1936 onward, the revolution dissolved into the war effort, and into a kind of combat typical of states: a war of fronts."

Dauve When Insurrections Die

Problem is the fascists have time and time again proved they are more then willing to go to Valhalla then allow the proletariat seize control. Also the Spanish civil-war accelerated class consciousness, the workers didn't evolve into soldiers but into revolutionaries the problem was the revolution was defeated militarily from both sides from the Stalinists and Fascists.



By not having leaders.
Class consciousness is not even, you have workers more class conscious then others. The counter-revolutionary forces will target the most class conscious workers, they will plant agitators to divide the workers and terrorize the workers to demoralize them, finally the capitalist armies would reclaim key means of production through force.

[Os Cangaceiros]

So how do you beat a capitalist army that has a stockpile of supplies thus they can attack during general strikes?

The insurmountable problem that they face is the simple hard fact that they need us, but we don't need them.

Another problem that you seem to have is that your analysis of world events seems to have stalled around 1936. Done any reading about the fragmentation of the Portugese military during the mid-70's? Or about the role of unions in overthrowing apartheid rule in South Africa? Or Iran's unions and the overthrow of the Shah? Or May '68 in France? Or '69 in Italy? The "capitalist class" is far from the united, terrifying behemoth that you make it out to be. Even the most tyrannical of dictatorships rest on some degree of popular consent.

[Psy]

The insurmountable problem that they face is the simple hard fact that they need us, but we don't need them.

Right but they have a big stick and don't need all of us especially in the current crisis meaning the capitalists can afford to lose workers in military intimidation missions.



Another problem that you seem to have is that your analysis of world events seems to have stalled around 1936. Done any reading about the fragmentation of the Portugese military during the mid-70's? Or about the role of unions in overthrowing apartheid rule in South Africa? Or Iran's unions and the overthrow of the Shah? Or May '68 in France? Or '69 in Italy? The "capitalist class" is far from the united, terrifying behemoth that you make it out to be. Even the most tyrannical of dictatorships rest on some degree of popular consent.
You also seem to forget COINTELPRO when the FBI murdered US citizens over realitive minor militancy.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Class consciousness is not even, you have workers more class conscious then others.


And this is where the main difference arises, IMO.

You believe some to be more equal than others, while we believe that such a mentality will inevitably lead right back to a state and then capitalism.

When EVERYONE (not just a select "more class conscious than thou" few) rejects their masters, there won't be any slaves for the capitalists to send to fight us.

The minority cannot create communism. You marxists need to stop forcing it and making all communists look bad.

[Psy]

And this is where the main difference arises, IMO.

You believe some to be more equal than others, while we believe that such a mentality will inevitably lead right back to a state and then capitalism.

When EVERYONE (not just a select "more class conscious than thou" few) rejects their masters, there won't be any slaves for the capitalists to send to fight us.

The minority cannot create communism. You marxists need to stop forcing it and making all communists look bad.

No, some people gain class consciousness later then other. The history of uprisings in the Eastern Bloc proves that in the absence of a vanguard your left with a confused movement and gets results like in the GDR where workers went along with unification with the bourgeois FRG when they found themselves without masters. Even when the GDR army became friendly towards workers, GDR workers lacked class consciousness to mobilize the GDR army into very powerful revolutionary army. Can you image the potential of having the GDR army as a armed revolutionary force back in 1990?

As for the idea of a revolution where everyone joins the revolution would that include the likes of the FBI, CIA, and US Army blackops? What about fascists are they going to join this Utopian revolution?

[Chambered Word]

Then I guess they would have bolted from Paris May 1968 if revolutionaries refused to fade away when the Paris Police got its ass brutally kicked and the French Army was deploying.

Huh?


Well that is what you are going to be doing if there is a revolution yet no army to defend you from counter-revolutionary forces. The capitalists armies will love your denouncement of revolutionary armies as they beat workers back into submission.

As much of a revolutionary genius as you are, the workers aren't in need of your assistance right now. Can you try and focus on subjects other than revolutionary armies from now on? Please?


And this is where the main difference arises, IMO.

You believe some to be more equal than others, while we believe that such a mentality will inevitably lead right back to a state and then capitalism.

When EVERYONE (not just a select "more class conscious than thou" few) rejects their masters, there won't be any slaves for the capitalists to send to fight us.

The minority cannot create communism. You marxists need to stop forcing it and making all communists look bad.

Regardless of how appropriate I think Psy's reply was to the post he was quoting, 'leading the workers' has no bearing on the purpose served by the vanguard party. Also, I don't think all Marxists argue the need for a such a party.

[Psy]

Huh?

Was saying that if one assumes the Black Bloc would bolt when faced with a revolutionary army fortifying its position at G20 they would have bolted in May 1968 when the French Army was being deployed in response to the Paris Police forces being beaten.



As much of a revolutionary genius as you are, the workers aren't in need of your assistance right now. Can you try and focus on subjects other than revolutionary armies from now on? Please?

I'm no revolutionary genius I'm just pointing out the logical flaw of denouncing revolutionaries army. The same mistake was make by Winnipeg soviet of 1919 where militant Winnipeg police took over police stations then wanted to be the army of the Winnipeg soviet yet the Winnipeg soviet told them they didn't need a army yet shortly after the RCMP backed up the Canadian army defeated the Winnipeg soviet with ease as there was no defenses.




Regardless of how appropriate I think Psy's reply was to the post he was quoting, 'leading the workers' has no bearing on the purpose served by the vanguard party. Also, I don't think all Marxists argue the need for a such a party.
Well it seems some Anarchists don't want any leadership at all, they rather simply have faith that one day workers will all at once become militant even though that is not how dialectical materialism works, as militant workers slowly creates class consciousness in the rest of the proletariat.

[bots]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/07/02/trois-rivieres-explosion.html

[bcbm]

You also seem to forget COINTELPRO when the FBI murdered US citizens over realitive minor militancy.

and just what do you think is going to happen when you start trying to build an army?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

what a bunch of pricks. i wish there was some way i could distance myself further from these people...they have no relationship to serious anti-capitalist action that isn't rioting once a year. and they're riddled with agent provocateurs.

Way to perpetuate the idea that the powers that be are omnipotent, omnicient, and invincible. Nobody could possibly be doing this unless they secretly work for the government, right? :rolleyes:

[Ele'ill]

Every action or purposeful march has a goal and at the end of everything we have to ask what percentage of the goal was met and how could we do better if we had the chance. I think that property destruction when used on a massive level as it was in Toronto (police estimate upwards of 1000 people involved in militant direct action on that day) reaches it's goal. It strikes a monetary blow to the corporations and more importantly it sends a message that some people will not sit and scoot through the bureaucratic waste land to accomplish goals.

The police didn't let it happen. There's video of cops in the squad cars while they're being hit with sticks, hammers, rocks and everything else.

If the police did let it happen for a specific reason- say to justify the bill (which doesn't make any sense as the 1billion+ was supposed to stop the destruction and would prove that security is useless eitherway) or to mass arrest the peaceful demonstrators (which would lead to civil rights lawsuits, perhaps further rioting of more than just the estimated 1000 people) then that specific reason(s) failed and the police did not achieve their goal.

It's important to remember that it wasn't 10-15 people in the street and however many hundreds of riot police that could have 'easily moved in and stopped it'. They were dealing with a large number of people in one spot- not all 6500 police were right there on that street or cross streets. They may have been out numbered by the 'rioters' and had they gone after the people they'd leave other- perhaps strategic cross streets or areas of the city vulnerable to anything from more destruction or even intersection lockdowns etc..


I think lockdowns are more affective and I think that being peaceful but not backing down from chemicals and swinging batons is more significant than breaking windows and burning stuff. It would be interesting to see 1000 people puking and snotting everywhere but still holding their ground- groups not alienating themselves- and using their numerical advantage to push to a point or lock down and occupy a point.

We already saw all of that it was called Seattle on November 30th 1999 and it fucking worked.

I'm tired of people chanting 'the whole world is watching' and yes the police are domestic terrorists and do act violent but when the demonstrators give in and then take their video tapes to legal nothing happens.

I'm tired of complaints regarding the black bloc tactic and anarchists and all the slander that goes with it. They're not all teenagers- they don't meet up to riot once a year in fact they're probably some of the more seasoned organizers in their communities.

I'm sick to fucking death of hearing groups blame anarchists for their own incompetence.



My advice is to make those blue suited mother fuckers beat you half to death and then give them a smile. We need more courage.

[Psy]

and just what do you think is going to happen when you start trying to build an army?
What do you think is going to happen when a powerful bourgeois state is faced with spreading revolution?

In the past the bourgeois state has always responded with military force and historically a bourgeois having their own people fight them is far more demoralizing to armies then oppressing their own people that offer minimal resistance for example in 1877 in it wasn't till the Maryland National Guard got into a pitch urban battle with the revolutionary army with the entire city of Baltimore joining the fight that they half of the National Guard decided to defect to the revolutionary army.

Yes 1877 failed but not because of a revolutionary army it would have been crushed much sooner without it. 1877 failed because there was not enough revolutionary armies across the USA. Image if half of all the National Guardsmen of the USA defected to revolutionary armies across the USA in July 1877 due to revolution spreading to every corner of the USA?

[Chambered Word]

I'm going to sit out of this thread til Psy stops jerking off about revolutionary armies.

[this is an invasion]

I'm going to sit out of this thread til Psy stops jerking off about revolutionary armies.

You'll be out for a while. I have yet to see a thread he posts in that does not turn into something about armies.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

This talk of armies sounds like it's just not my kink. I don't have an army fetish. Sowwiez! :(

[Psy]

I'm going to sit out of this thread til Psy stops jerking off about revolutionary armies.
Well everyone else is jerking off about relative pacifism, if taken seriously most everyone on the left would be "jerking off about revolutionary armies" as both Bakunin and Marx supported the armies defending the Paris commune yet I'm getting attacked just for pointing out the usefulness of them.

[this is an invasion]

Well everyone else is jerking off about relative pacifism, if taken seriously most everyone on the left would be "jerking off about revolutionary armies" as both Bakunin and Marx supported the armies defending the Paris commune yet I'm getting attacked just for pointing out the usefulness of them.


Revolutions are about changing social relations. You don't get this.

[Chambered Word]

Well everyone else is jerking off about relative pacifism, if taken seriously most everyone on the left would be "jerking off about revolutionary armies" as both Bakunin and Marx supported the armies defending the Paris commune yet I'm getting attacked just for pointing out the usefulness of them.

You've pointed it out, good, now just fucking move on. :rolleyes:

[Psy]

Revolutions are about changing social relations. You don't get this.
I get this but you also seem to ignore that both Marx and Bakunin supported revolutionary armies, thus this is not really a dividing issue between tradition Marxists and Anarchists thus why both Anarchists and Marxists had armies during the Spanish civil-war.

[Ele'ill]

I get this but you also seem to ignore that both Marx and Bakunin supported revolutionary armies, thus this is not really a dividing issue between tradition Marxists and Anarchists thus why both Anarchists and Marxists had armies during the Spanish civil-war.

Fuck that shit- what are we- a hundred years old?

New ideas, new resistance, new fights. We're not in the same conditions and we're not facing the same problems.

[this is an invasion]

I get this but you also seem to ignore that both Marx and Bakunin supported revolutionary armies, thus this is not really a dividing issue between tradition Marxists and Anarchists thus why both Anarchists and Marxists had armies during the Spanish civil-war.

First off, this is 2010. Get with the times. Spouting shit that happened decades ago doesn't really matter.

Second, no one is denying the need to defend ourselves.

To be honest, your obsession with militarism is quite concerning. You don't seem to get the fact that an anti-capitalist revolution is first and foremost a change in social relationships. When an insurrection has become a war of fronts, it has ceased to have any relevance to every day life, and thus has ceased to be revolutionary.

I have yet to see you contribute to a thread that didn't involve you saying something about a revolutionary army.

[Foldered]

Fuck that shit- what are we- a hundred years old?

New ideas, new resistance, new fights. We're not in the same conditions and we're not facing the same problems.
I agree. I think this is necessary to point out and emphasize; you cannot simply cite bakunin to refute/rebute something that is a contemporary leftist issue.

[Psy]

First off, this is 2010. Get with the times. Spouting shit that happened decades ago doesn't really matter.

Has the capitalists became more humane since then?



Second, no one is denying the need to defend ourselves.

Yes you are since you are arguing with me over a revolutionary army simply taking up defensive positions and fortifying them to deny access to riot police.





To be honest, your obsession with militarism is quite concerning. You don't seem to get the fact that an anti-capitalist revolution is first and foremost a change in social relationships. When an insurrection has become a war of fronts, it has ceased to have any relevance to every day life, and thus has ceased to be revolutionary.

Wrong, if it didn't have any relevance to every day life the bourgeoisie would not bother with wars either. Wars are not outside social relationships, wars are a result of conflicts within social relationships be it between competing ruling classes or a class revolting against the class structure. To the people of Baltimore in July 1877 the battle with the National Guard had everything to do every daily life thus why they put up such a dedicated fight, same with Paris May 1968 the fights with police again had everything to do with daily life.




I have yet to see you contribute to a thread that didn't involve you saying something about a revolutionary army.
Then you probably have not bothered searching the threads I started.

[Chambered Word]

Wrong, if it didn't have any relevance to every day life the bourgeoisie would not bother with wars either. Wars are not outside social relationships, wars are a result of conflicts within social relationships be it between competing ruling classes or a class revolting against the class structure. To the people of Baltimore in July 1877 the battle with the National Guard had everything to do every daily life thus why they put up such a dedicated fight, same with Paris May 1968 the fights with police again had everything to do with daily life.


Come on. If you aren't going to just leave this shit for the war strategy textbooks and contribute to discussing socialism instead, I'm just going to ignore your posts altogether.

[this is an invasion]

Has the capitalists became more humane since then? It has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with the fact that the only things you ever talk about either happened 70 + plus years ago, or show your complete ignorance on the subject (May 68). A frontal war of fronts with the bourgeoisie will not work. The weapons of today's governments are far more advanced than they were back in the Thirties.



Yes you are since you are arguing with me over a revolutionary army simply taking up defensive positions and fortifying them to deny access to riot police. No I'm not. People should defend themselves. See? A "revolutionary army" is not the only way people can defend themselves. If you take some time and read and study the major rioting that has happened within the last 50 years you'll see that people were quite capable of defending themselves, and quite willing to do so.

I'm not even arguing against small scale armed struggle. Forming a specialized revolutionary army, which is what you propose, is anti-communist in every single way.





Wrong, if it didn't have any relevance to every day life the bourgeoisie would not bother with wars either. Wars are not outside social relationships, wars are a result of conflicts within social relationships be it between competing ruling classes or a class revolting against the class structure. To the people of Baltimore in July 1877 the battle with the National Guard had everything to do every daily life thus why they put up such a dedicated fight, same with Paris May 1968 the fights with police again had everything to do with daily life. You know what's even more removed from daily life than war is? Things that happened over 100 years ago.

May 68 had nothing to do with a revolutionary army.




Then you probably have not bothered searching the threads I started.
I can't be that bothered to bore the shit out of myself. Every post I've come across from you has mentioned a revolutionary army.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Well everyone else is jerking off about relative pacifism, if taken seriously most everyone on the left would be "jerking off about revolutionary armies" as both Bakunin and Marx supported the armies defending the Paris commune yet I'm getting attacked just for pointing out the usefulness of them.

If you ask me, uniform fetishes are overrated.

[bricolage]

Well everyone else is jerking off about relative pacifism, if taken seriously most everyone on the left would be "jerking off about revolutionary armies" as both Bakunin and Marx supported the armies defending the Paris commune yet I'm getting attacked just for pointing out the usefulness of them.

The Paris Commune wasn't defended by any armies, I think Marx is pretty clear on the relationship between the Communards and the army;

"The Commune made that catchword of bourgeois revolutions – cheap government – a reality by destroying the two greatest sources of expenditure: the standing army and state functionarism."

What the Commune was defended by was ordinary Parisians picking up guns and standing on barricades on their streets, in their neighbourhoods. There was indeed the National Guard but the National Guard was also too just ordinary Parisians, in fact everyone was in the National Guard. And before you say it the Commune did not end in Bloody Week because they were not good enough at fighting, but because (like with some many revolutions) it did not spread, its death was its isolation. In any case if you think the greatest part of the Commune was its armed defence then you are seriously missing what was beautiful about the Commune.

[Psy]

The Paris Commune wasn't defended by any armies,

Yes it was



I think Marx is pretty clear on the relationship between the Communards and the army;

"The Commune made that catchword of bourgeois revolutions – cheap government – a reality by destroying the two greatest sources of expenditure: the standing army and state functionarism."


Standing army mean professional army, troops who's job is to be soldiers and he is talking about cutting expenditure thus that all he meant.



What the Commune was defended by was ordinary Parisians picking up guns and standing on barricades on their streets, in their neighbourhoods. There was indeed the National Guard but the National Guard was also too just ordinary Parisians, in fact everyone was in the National Guard. And before you say it the Commune did not end in Bloody Week because they were not good enough at fighting, but because (like with some many revolutions) it did not spread, its death was its isolation. In any case if you think the greatest part of the Commune was its armed defence then you are seriously missing what was beautiful about the Commune.
That's a army. Try looking it the word up in a dictionary "a very large number or group of something" as a definition, "army of unemployed" comes from didn't mean the unemployed were carrying guns in a military of the unemployed but a large group of unemployed. Thus revolutionary army means a large body of revolutionaries when we add the definition "any body of persons organized for any purpose" we assume this large body of revolutionaries are organized towards revolution.


It has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with the fact that the only things you ever talk about either happened 70 + plus years ago, or show your complete ignorance on the subject (May 68).

Are you saying there was no large body of revolutionaries during May 1968? That the large body of revolutionaries did not take control of sections of Paris through force? That they did not deny police access to parts of Paris?



A frontal war of fronts with the bourgeoisie will not work. The weapons of today's governments are far more advanced than they were back in the Thirties.

Even with all that weaponry the US is can't defeat guerrilla forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also the US military is up against just dinky guerrillas not a massive revolutionary army and don't forget that British troops in 1946 went on a wildcat strike in protest of continued deployment.




No I'm not. People should defend themselves. See? A "revolutionary army" is not the only way people can defend themselves. If you take some time and read and study the major rioting that has happened within the last 50 years you'll see that people were quite capable of defending themselves, and quite willing to do so.

Riots lack any real cohesion, barricades are not erected, flanks are ignored and rioters mostly just run around with having any real tactic.



I'm not even arguing against small scale armed struggle. Forming a specialized revolutionary army, which is what you propose, is anti-communist in every single way.

Why? And if that is the case why did both Bakunin and Marx support them? Why do want small groups of fighters rather then massive armies as a deterrence for the bourgeoisie to counter-attack?




You know what's even more removed from daily life than war is? Things that happened over 100 years ago.


May 68 had nothing to do with a revolutionary army.

It was a revolutionary army (or at least the beginnings of one depending on how organized you view them), look up the word army in a dictionary.




I can't be that bothered to bore the shit out of myself. Every post I've come across from you has mentioned a revolutionary army.
And you never thought that you only come across my posts about revolutionary armies?



Come on. If you aren't going to just leave this shit for the war strategy textbooks and contribute to discussing socialism instead, I'm just going to ignore your posts altogether.
It is about socialism, how can you have a popular revolution without army of revolutionaries the two statements are contradictory as a popular revolution without a army of revolutionaries literally means a popular revolution with only a tiny group of revolutionaries.

You meant the other definition of army (a body of persons organized for a purpose)? So we have a revolution without a body of organized revolutionaries so we have a popular revolution of disorganized revolutionaries? Wouldn't that mean to achieve that goal we should try to splinter and confuse the left movement as much as possible to ensure we never become organized?

Or do you mean a armed body? Wait don't bourgeois state only surrender to armed bodies? See how this statement denouncing armies just confuses the left?

[bcbm]

a popular revolution without a army of revolutionaries literally means a popular revolution with only a tiny group of revolutionaries.

i'm pretty sure "popular" means something quite different than "tiny group."

[Psy]

i'm pretty sure "popular" means something quite different than "tiny group."
Army means a large body usually a large organized body. So popular revolution without a revolutionary army means a popular revolution with no large organized revolutionary body or taken very literally no large revolutionary body at all.

[bcbm]

you're just playing word games now. its totally obvious to anyone with half a brain that when you say "army" you don't just mean a "large organized body."

[Psy]

you're just playing word games now. its totally obvious to anyone with half a brain that when you say "army" you don't just mean a "large organized body."
So when Marx said "reserved army of unemployed" you think he meant a armed body of unemployed in reserve?

Also a field army (the most common military meaning of the word army) is 80,000+ troops, hell if we could call on 80,000+ armed troops I highly doubt G20 riot police would be of any threat.

[bcbm]

:rolleyes:whatever you say boss

[Saorsa]

The advanced weapons of the bourgeoisie mean nothing to us. Our armies will ride into battle on forklifts, and they will be invincible.

[Ele'ill]

So when Marx said "reserved army of unemployed" you think he meant a armed body of unemployed in reserve?

Also a field army (the most common military meaning of the word army) is 80,000+ troops, hell if we could call on 80,000+ armed troops I highly doubt G20 riot police would be of any threat.


I don't understand your fascination with Marx. He's crippling your ability to think for yourself.

We need to start talking about the idea that demonstrations can't just be contrasted with violence and people either following the violence and *****ing about it- basically in toronto you had a thousand or so activists engaging in actions while the rest of the nine thousand people just sat in parks or stood in the street surrounded by police.

This is bad for everyone.

Yes, there will likely be legal actions against the police- this will always happen and they're obviously very comfortable with it. The police's rounding up of journalists and people with cameras is nothing more than damage control- they know they're going to take a hit but if they can minimize it they will.

We can't let ourselves get comfy with their way of doing things.

[Psy]

:rolleyes:whatever you say boss
Okay lets try a thought experiment was the Black Panthers a revolutionary army?

If we go by large organized body the BPP was too small, if we go by field army the BPP was less then 80,000. Okay what about army as in the US Army? Army in that case means a national armed body but wait if a army in that case means national armed body how can it also be a revolutionary army? What nation do revolutionary armies fight for? Even if we assume the dictionaries are wrong and they mean armed body of a state then it still wrong as what is a "revolutionary state" this would only make any sense if they were called a worker army as atleast then they would be the armed body of a worker state.

So were revolutionaries just stupid and just didn't know English (revolutionaries that still debate the meaning of the word nation) or could be revolutionary army does not mean a army like the US Army just for the revolution but a large organized force towards the task of defending the revolution?

[Psy]

I don't understand your fascination with Marx. He's crippling your ability to think for yourself.

Because Marx is the base for understanding capitalism.



We need to start talking about the idea that demonstrations can't just be contrasted with violence and people either following the violence and *****ing about it- basically in toronto you had a thousand or so activists engaging in actions while the rest of the nine thousand people just sat in parks or stood in the street surrounded by police.

This is bad for everyone.

Yes, there will likely be legal actions against the police- this will always happen and they're obviously very comfortable with it. The police's rounding up of journalists and people with cameras is nothing more than damage control- they know they're going to take a hit but if they can minimize it they will.

We can't let ourselves get comfy with their way of doing things.
True but before you can challenge the police you need a large organized body not necessarily armed. For example if the police meet massive barricades erected by (a) large revolutionary body(ies) that also defended these fortified positions impeding police advancement then the actions of the police would have also been impeded.

[Jimmie Higgins]

New ideas, new resistance, new fights. We're not in the same conditions and we're not facing the same problems.
Yes, we should always assess what the conditions are and what the best ways to deal with them. But regarding the the black bloc: they have been doing the same thing for 10 years and has never been able to duplicate its initial impact.

To me it seems like the major problem with the left is that in each new generation, workers have to fight the same fights and learn the same old lessons over and over again.

Insurrectionism, adventurism, and relying on street-fights rather than organizing workers was the same old failed lesson from the 1960s. Only back then the insurrectionists with no connection to the working class in the industrial countries (with some exceptions) generally called themselves Maoists.

[blake 3:17]

I don't see the point in comparing the events in Toronto in the past 10 days to Paris in 1968. There's no blueprint to this stuff. The important work is around challenging the state in the concrete and the austerity measures that the G20 are commited to. The really interesting part is the numbers of not so political people asking radical questions. The comparison that makes more sense is Seattle in 99 -- things are much less buoyant than then, but may help foster some more serious and sustained activism. It's also unsettled a lot of folks on the Left.


Protests are being planned for July 10 and 17 in defense of civil liberties-- not entirely sure who's organizing what. The whole response is pretty interesting as web based horizontal organization. (Everything I'm getting on this from FB)

A number of useful articles: http://www.thestar.com/article/831443--walkom-the-g20-summit-s-grim-lessons-for-civil-liberties

If you can please sign, info in link: http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/judes/2010/07/toronto-call-no-more-police-state-tactics

A fairly mechanical but not terrible Marxist approach: http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/381.php

And a bit more fluid: http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/380.php

[blake 3:17]

To me it seems like the major problem with the left is that in each new generation, workers have to fight the same fights and learn the same old lessons over and over again.

It is one of our biggest challenges. A lot of the most valuable roles the organized far Left plays is in sustaining historical memory. I've been immersed the last couple of days on "long" Sixties and the international New Left. Maybe I'm getting too pomo, but I don't see any single lessons appearing.


Insurrectionism, adventurism, and relying on street-fights rather than organizing workers was the same old failed lesson from the 1960s.

Maybe. I don't there's a distinct binary relationship between class organization and some insurrectionism. A big boost for labour radicalism in the 60s and 70s was the spirit of insurrectionism.

[Wolf Larson]

Yes, we should always assess what the conditions are and what the best ways to deal with them. But regarding the the black bloc: they have been doing the same thing for 10 years and has never been able to duplicate its initial impact.

To me it seems like the major problem with the left is that in each new generation, workers have to fight the same fights and learn the same old lessons over and over again.

Insurrectionism, adventurism, and relying on street-fights rather than organizing workers was the same old failed lesson from the 1960s. Only back then the insurrectionists with no connection to the working class in the industrial countries (with some exceptions) generally called themselves Maoists.

Problem no 1. I worked in both the carpenters and Iron workers union. 97% of us/them didn't know first thing about actual socialism.

Problem no 2. The CIA/NSA/full US Defense Department is still in full scale containment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment) mode. This doesn't simply apply to foreign countries....they are facilitating the "containment" agenda here in the US.

http://www.alternet.org/world/142057/obama,_ignoring_local_outrage,_set_to_expand_u.s._ military_presence_in_colombia/


Problem no 3. The capitalist education system. You simply cannot reverse decades of conditioning fora majority of the population. This is why you see university students becoming more open to socialism. A college education goes a long way (but is not necessary) to help create class awareness.

Problem no 4. The capitalist media. TV TV TV TV TV TV RADIO and more TV. I would have thought the internet would have marginalized TV and radio by now. Perhaps in another 5 or 10 years? Net neutrality is an important tool for human progression. There's an entire superstructure of propaganda out there which the capitalist class uses to create our reality. Call it the capitalist matrix if you will. Our economic system dictates what our reality looks like. How do you get people to see that our economic system and hence reality isn't normal when it's all they've known since birth and are perpetually inoculated with all manner of slight of hand trickery, euphemisms, half truths, lies, advertisements and propaganda normalizing this system?

Life is indeed a big commercial for most of us. Blah!

[Chambered Word]

If you ask me, uniform fetishes are overrated.

Boots <3



It is about socialism, how can you have a popular revolution without army of revolutionaries the two statements are contradictory as a popular revolution without a army of revolutionaries literally means a popular revolution with only a tiny group of revolutionaries.

You meant the other definition of army (a body of persons organized for a purpose)? So we have a revolution without a body of organized revolutionaries so we have a popular revolution of disorganized revolutionaries? Wouldn't that mean to achieve that goal we should try to splinter and confuse the left movement as much as possible to ensure we never become organized?

Or do you mean a armed body? Wait don't bourgeois state only surrender to armed bodies? See how this statement denouncing armies just confuses the left?

I'm going to make myself clear. We don't need to theorize indefinitely about what strategies a revolutionary standing army should use because we could be doing something else; there are an infinite number of different conditions that we would need to prepare for, and it represents a top-down utopian approach to establishing a socialist order. The working class will know what to do when struggle erupts. You are also forgetting one of the tenets of Marxism; the working class produces everything of value and makes all social production operate, workers alone have the collective power to stop profits by simply not labouring. A super-duper army of revolutionary cyborgs is simply not necessary to destroy social relations.

The workers do not need us to tell them how to take power but we do constantly need to be arguing for revolutionary politics.

[Psy]

I'm going to make myself clear. We don't need to theorize indefinitely about what strategies a revolutionary standing army should use

Bad English unless you actually mean army of professional soldiers organized to defend a revolution (defected bourgeois soldiers?). Basically revolutionary armies are not standing as they not limited to professional soldiers.



because we could be doing something else; there are an infinite number of different conditions that we would need to prepare for, and it represents a top-down utopian approach to establishing a socialist order.

How is utopian? Would it not be more utopian to think the bourgeois will ever surrender to disorganized force?



The working class will know what to do when struggle erupts.

History proves otherwise, the working class has always looked to a vanguard during a revolution and its absence has no clue what to do like the German revolutions after the Russian revolution.



You are also forgetting one of the tenets of Marxism; the working class produces everything of value and makes all social production operate, workers alone have the collective power to stop profits by simply not labouring. A super-duper army of revolutionary cyborgs is simply not necessary to destroy social relations.

Your forgetting the bourgeois does not need all the working class alive to operate its means of production.



The workers do not need us to tell them how to take power but we do constantly need to be arguing for revolutionary politics.
Again history proves otherwise, workers have no knowledge of what work and didn't in the past.

[bcbm]

Okay lets try a thought experiment

no thanks


But regarding the the black bloc: they have been doing the same thing for 10 years and has never been able to duplicate its initial impact.

i would say globally the tactic, at least at summit protests, peaked initially around 2001 then went into decline until the rostock demos. in north america, quebec city was probably the peak although, excluding that demo, most of the black blocs today are bigger, better prepared and better executed than anything that was happening 1999-2007.


To me it seems like the major problem with the left is that in each new generation, workers have to fight the same fights and learn the same old lessons over and over again.

it doesn't seem like they learn much.


Insurrectionism, adventurism, and relying on street-fights rather than organizing workers

false dichotomy. there is almost no one "relying on street fights"


was the same old failed lesson from the 1960s. Only back then the insurrectionists with no connection to the working class in the industrial countries (with some exceptions) generally called themselves Maoists.

most insurrectionists are working class and the comparison to maoists is pretty assinine- totally different approaches are happening today than what the weatherman et al were doing 40 years ago.

[Psy]

no thanks

I'm explaining why revolutionary army doesn't mean what you think it means by using common sense and when it does also meas what you think it does the concerns brought up are unfounded. If by revolutionary army we really mean revolutionary field army (or larger) we'd be a large (80,000+) armed body so the bourgeoisie would have serious problems pushing us around, prior to that we are talking a guerrilla force/insurgency. Revolutionary theory make it safe to assume we never will mean a national army/state army as we'd then use the term worker army to mean the army of a worker's state as it is something totally different then a revolutionary army and is only compatible with the theory of socialism in one country.

[bcbm]

i don't even read what you say any more