Why Vandalism?

[AnthArmo]

This is a question for the Anarchists.

In Toronto, the most powerful heads of state from across the world are discussing how best to improve on their exploitation of the working class. The State has spent billions creating a police state in Toronto. And the police have exploited this opportunity with acts of harrasment such as these (http://toronto.mediacoop.ca/story/readers-stories-1/3911)

I get that, and I get the importance for these protests.

My question is...vandalism? I've heard that most of the mainstream and labour organised protesters do their absolute best to separate themselves from the Black Bloc. And I've seen footage of Black Bloc protestors attacking police cars and stores.

Question. WHY!?!?

What on earth is the point of this? What could possibly be achieved by such petty acts of vandalism. The police cars I sorta get, sorta. But when Labour and Mainstream protestors are actually trying to dissasociate themselves from the Black Bloc. And all the Black Bloc is achieving is the reinforcement of Anarchism as "A bunch of young angry people that want chaos." What on earth are you trying to achieve?

As I see it, this can be anyone of three things...

This is either police sabotage made to deliberately make the Black Bloc look bad and to justify their own prescence (Which I think has been done before).

Some logical explanation that the mainstream media isn't commenting on.

Or just batshit stupidity.

Please tell me the last option isn't the correct one...

[¿Que?]

EDIT: nevermind.

[Fietsketting]

Its not vandalism, but instead of explaining what it actually is your better off in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/black-clad-protesters-t137631/index.html) about the same subject.

[Hiratsuka]

I had to laugh at some of the replies in that thread. The 'anarchists' started to wreck property, and then the police retaliated. Really?

Not all anarchists stand for such childish antics; don't worry.

[mcg]

I wasn't there and I'm not black bloc. It is awe inspiring though to see the capitalists forced to call out such force to deal with a few people. They look scared and are revealed as the militaristic fascists they are. It's anger not strategy. An anger we should all be feeling. Our leaders should know we're angry and they should tremble because of it.

[Spanishleft]

I totally disapprove any kind of violence! However, I think I do understand the actions some of the anarchists have committed, as to lead the capitalists to revise their oppressive definition of value and ownership. To question all authority we need to question the definition capitalists have imposed on us, too! However, repeating myself, I do not praise vandalism, it does not show the true culture of communism

[Red Saxon]

You should realize that there is a difference between actual Anarchists and people who like to dress up in black and fuck shit up.

Of course the Anarchists who actually like to do stuff like that are total dumbshits who just inflame the situation for no reason and actually deserve to get that baton to the face.

[Spanishleft]

Anarchists are NOT total dumbshits!

[Red Saxon]

Anarchists are NOT total dumbshits!Read my whole post? kthx.

[Sean]

I wasn't there and I'm not black bloc. It is awe inspiring though to see the capitalists forced to call out such force to deal with a few people. They look scared and are revealed as the militaristic fascists they are. It's anger not strategy. An anger we should all be feeling. Our leaders should know we're angry and they should tremble because of it.
That's certainly one way you can look at it. Another is that it was a total overreaction to a completely ineffectual group of people knocking over bins and making the place frightfully untidy. But yeah, masochism is a great strategy, if enough people throw themselves under the wheels of police cars the world will be forced to see what inconsiderate drivers they are and all.

I'm not condemning violence, everyone's entitled to be angry and noisy, and as long as you keep it out of poor residential areas they won't rebuild there's no damage done. The wee man on his ride-on street cleaner will be out the next day cleaning up after you and Mickey D's will have to take customers in the side door till the glazers are finished. Getting caught isn't even something that would bother future employers about that much. I'm just saying I think you're kidding yourself that tiring out a policeman's legs by stopping it with your face is something that terrifies the establishment.

Another pointless activity I can suggest is letter writing to companies. I stood outside the Gap once for a while one mayday I think it was, then went home and wrote an angry email. A week later I got a boilerplate response in the post printed on very expensive, watermarked paper. Fools! That email cost me nothing to send! Fuckin showed them, I can tell you.

[mcg]

Appearance means a lot to the capitalists. They have to make us believe that revolution is impossible and fruitless. They have to make us believe the government is a benevolent one instead of a military empire. Forcing them to show their true colors is as effective a victory as anything else the left does.

[Invincible Summer]

Appearance means a lot to the capitalists. They have to make us believe that revolution is impossible and fruitless. They have to make us believe the government is a benevolent one instead of a military empire. Forcing them to show their true colors is as effective a victory as anything else the left does.


Well, from all the similar protests in the past with all the similar acts of property destruction, I'm not sure if people get the message at all.

If anything, they feel that they need to be "protected" by the state, not that the state is overreacting.

[Sean]

Appearance means a lot to the capitalists. They have to make us believe that revolution is impossible and fruitless. They have to make us believe the government is a benevolent one instead of a military empire. Forcing them to show their true colors is as effective a victory as anything else the left does.
Sounds like retroactive rationalization. The ol' "haha! It was my plan to screw up all along!"
If this genuinely is the logic applied before people set out of their homes - deliberately provoking the police into hostility toward uninvolved people purely for propaganda - then they might as well get paid cause they're doing the job of the cops themselves.
I hope noone seriously sets out in the hope that they can get a stranger shot because of the headlines it would create.

[bcbm]

My question is...vandalism? I've heard that most of the mainstream and labour organised protesters do their absolute best to separate themselves from the Black Bloc. And I've seen footage of Black Bloc protestors attacking police cars and stores.

Question. WHY!?!?

because the g-8/20 are among the primary managers and architects of our ongoing global catastrophe and this makes some people very angry.

also because setting cop cars on fire is probably fun.


What on earth is the point of this? What could possibly be achieved by such petty acts of vandalism.

500 people just sent their message (albeit "total war on everything that sucks") to millions through a day of fairly minor smashy smashy. you can't buy that kind of coverage.


But when Labour and Mainstream protestors are actually trying to dissasociate themselves from the Black Bloc.

how is a bunch of wieners disassociating themselves from the black bloc a sign that something is wrong with the black bloc? i'd say the walking corpses not wanting anything to do with them shows they're doing something right.


And all the Black Bloc is achieving is the reinforcement of Anarchism as "A bunch of young angry people that want chaos." What on earth are you trying to achieve?

chaos.


This is either police sabotage made to deliberately make the Black Bloc look bad and to justify their own prescence (Which I think has been done before).

no.


Some logical explanation that the mainstream media isn't commenting on.

there's a good interview in "we are an image from the future" i'll quote to you if i ever get around to it.


Or just batshit stupidity.

well, it takes all types.


Of course the Anarchists who actually like to do stuff like that are total dumbshits who just inflame the situation for no reason and actually deserve to get that baton to the face.

i hope you get maced, scum.

[this is an invasion]

Vandalism is fun and it's a release. As bcbm said, the g20 pisses people off. Capitalism pisses people off. Spectacular society pisses people off. Cops piss people off.

Why do you care what people do? If you don't like vandalism, don't vandalize things.

And if you are really going to blame the black bloc for bad media coverage then you're either a total fucking moron, or you're goddamn high.

I think the real question is why are people stopping at smashing windows? Did anyone notice the jewelry store that got smashed up? Like, for real. A jewelry store. With expensive ass jewels.

[this is an invasion]

Of course the Anarchists who actually like to do stuff like that are total dumbshits who just inflame the situation for no reason and actually deserve to get that baton to the face.


Eat a knife.

[Tablo]

Why vandalism? Because it is fun I suppose. It obviously does nothing to attack the ruling class, but it does show some level of consciousness, while low, and allow working class people to blow off some steam. Vandalism won't win the class war, but it is fun and doesn't really damage our cause in any significant way.

[Luisrah]

Why vandalism? Because it is fun I suppose. It obviously does nothing to attack the ruling class, but it does show some level of consciousness, while low, and allow working class people to blow off some steam. Vandalism won't win the class war, but it is fun and doesn't really damage our cause in any significant way.

It doesn't? Seriously, there are lots of ways in which is hurts our cause.

Lots of people consider vandalism really something worthy of it's origin for the word, Vandals. They look at it as stupid kids that are doing it just for what you said, for fun. That hurts our cause.

Plus, the repression of such a thing doesn't anger the working class because ''they had it coming'', they were being violent and stupid, so they're better locked up or something.

A peaceful protest shows that those who are in it have a bigger chance of being conscious, since there's less chance they're doing to for fun.
Plus, they are being peaceful, and the repression of such peaceful protests is seen as much more undemocratic, and thus, sends a much ''better'' message to the working class, which is that the state will opress any protest, violent, or non-violent.

[NecroCommie]

Lots of people consider vandalism really something worthy of it's origin for the word, Vandals. They look at it as stupid kids that are doing it just for what you said, for fun. That hurts our cause.

So if a huge portion of people think something is stupid it should be stopped so that we wouldn't lose potential supporters?

Well fuck! I better stop being a communist!



A peaceful protest shows that those who are in it have a bigger chance of being conscious, since there's less chance they're doing to for fun.
Plus, they are being peaceful, and the repression of such peaceful protests is seen as much more undemocratic, and thus, sends a much ''better'' message to the working class, which is that the state will opress any protest, violent, or non-violent.

The media will turn it against us anyway, peaceful or not. Moral upper ground is as useless in propaganda as it was in India when Gandhi walked around.

Don't get me wrong, mindless berserking is harmful in my oppinion, I just don't see your arguments as valid.

Also, as long as the violence is targeted strictly at the violence agencies of the state, I don't see what possible negative effects it might have, save for the ones we already have simply for the sake of being revolutionary. If we openly support revolution, we are simply destined to be trolled by pacifists and naive morons of all colors.

So if one has to vandalize, just stick to the cops OK? Shops have done nothing against you! (as buildings I mean...)

[Luisrah]

So if a huge portion of people think something is stupid it should be stopped so that we wouldn't lose potential supporters?

Well fuck! I better stop being a communist!

I didn't state my opinion on it, I just said that I think it hurts our cause. It does more harm than good as there are better, more successful ways of gaining supporters.


The media will turn it against us anyway, peaceful or not. Moral upper ground is as useless in propaganda as it was in India when Gandhi walked around.

Don't get me wrong, mindless berserking is harmful in my oppinion, I just don't see your arguments as valid.

Also, as long as the violence is targeted strictly at the violence agencies of the state, I don't see what possible negative effects it might have, save for the ones we already have simply for the sake of being revolutionary. If we openly support revolution, we are simply destined to be trolled by pacifists and naive morons of all colors.

So if one has to vandalize, just stick to the cops OK? Shops have done nothing against you! (as buildings I mean...)

Yes, but it's easier to fight back media misconceptions that we are evil if we were being peaceful and the cops attacked first. I'm just saying. I think such violent acts should only occur when we have enough people on our side, and things are starting to heat up.

[JacobVardy]

This is a question for the Anarchists.

In Toronto, the most powerful heads of state from across the world are discussing how best to improve on their exploitation of the working class. The State has spent billions creating a police state in Toronto. And the police have exploited this opportunity with acts of harrasment such as these (http://toronto.mediacoop.ca/story/readers-stories-1/3911)

I get that, and I get the importance for these protests.

My question is...vandalism? I've heard that most of the mainstream and labour organised protesters do their absolute best to separate themselves from the Black Bloc. And I've seen footage of Black Bloc protestors attacking police cars and stores.

Question. WHY!?!?

What on earth is the point of this? What could possibly be achieved by such petty acts of vandalism. The police cars I sorta get, sorta. But when Labour and Mainstream protestors are actually trying to dissasociate themselves from the Black Bloc. And all the Black Bloc is achieving is the reinforcement of Anarchism as "A bunch of young angry people that want chaos." What on earth are you trying to achieve?

As I see it, this can be anyone of three things...

This is either police sabotage made to deliberately make the Black Bloc look bad and to justify their own prescence (Which I think has been done before).

Some logical explanation that the mainstream media isn't commenting on.

Or just batshit stupidity.

Please tell me the last option isn't the correct one...

Mate, from what i have seen on Indymedia et al, there has yet to be any violence at the G20 summit. Violence means harm to people and other animals. Breaking windows and trashing a store is not violence, it is merely damaging things. Burning a pig alive would be violence. Throwing cocktails at coppers when they are covered in fire proof gear is not violence. Fighting back against coppers is not violence - it is self defense.

[manic expression]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ9zPySHbuY


Throwing cocktails at coppers when they are covered in fire proof gear is not violence. Fighting back against coppers is not violence - it is self defense.
Yes, it is violence. Whether or not it's justified is the question.

[tracher999]

Why vandalism? Because it is fun I suppose. It obviously does nothing to attack the ruling class, but it does show some level of consciousness, while low, and allow working class people to blow off some steam. Vandalism won't win the class war, but it is fun and doesn't really damage our cause in any significant way.

idd vandalism is fun :mad::thumbup1: keep it up man

[TheSamsquatch]

I understand that the majority of people that dress in black and fuck shit up are total dumb asses, and really have no idea what they are even protesting. I get that.
But for the few people that understand what's going on, that understand what the G20 summit really is, and that consciously torch a cop car. How can you say that that they are stupid? I mean for all you know they could totally understand TRUE Anarchism, and instead of sitting around on a message board debating ethics, they're out there doing something.
You can write a book nobody will read, you can preach your message all day, but nothing equates to real action.

[Scary Monster]

Seriously, anarchists are always the ones at protests who do stupid shit that provoke the police to attack, yet doesnt get anyone's message across.

[TheSamsquatch]

Seriously, anarchists are always the ones at protests who do stupid shit that provoke the police to attack, yet doesnt get anyone's message across.

Thats true, but what does peaceful protest get you?

[Scary Monster]

Thats true, but what does peaceful protest get you?

Absolutely nothing. But teenage kids throwing bottles and molotovs at the cops because its rebellious (probably didnt happen at the G20 this time but they are the only ones who do this at protests ive been to or hear about) gets you, and others, a savage beating from the bastard cops just because you were near the "anarchists".

[Rocky Rococo]

I am neither for nor against actions that involve property damage as a matter of principle (although always opposed to such acts against people unless in the most dire cases of self-defense.) Depending on circumstances, there may be tactical usefulness to that sort of Black Bloc action, but I think that's not well understood by those who engage in it. There was a reason it was effective in Seattle, but often hasn't been since, and I don't think a lot of those involved get the distinction.

That sort of action works well when it works to pull police away from the main body of a protest, weakening the defensive perimeters, allowing the main body of a march/protest to access areas that a larger police presence would have denied. That's what happened successfully at Seattle.

Black Blocs need to incorporate strategy and tactics in their planning and actions; unfortunately the wrong lesson/message has been taken from what happened in Seattle, which appeals to what should be a discredited macho mentality.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Why vandalism? Because:

1) People think that it's fun.

2) There's a whole doctrine of anarchism that advocates aggressive action (in the words of Killing King Abacus: "The state will not just wither away; attack." This line of thought is not unique to anarchists, either...one can point to any number of Marxist groups in the USA and Europe that held this line as well.) The G20 is a very good choice as far as a symbolic attack on multinational power goes, and that's why anarchists go there and riot, as well as why they attack symbols of multinational corporatism, like financial institutions, chain stores etc. And of course there's a bunch of anarchists who just go on indiscriminate rampages, bless them.

3) It gives publicity to anarchism. Some people may say that it's bad publicity, but IMO anarchism is going to get bad publicity no matter what. Speaking personally, the first real political moment that I remember from my youth was the WTO protests in Seattle. Some of my co-workers were there and entertained my young ears with crazy stories about battles in the street with Seattle PD.

In any case: I'm not such a big supporter of the Black Bloc tactics. Not because I disapprove of violence as such (I don't), but because I question the pragmatism of the actions, as I'm sure others do. They are not usually linked with mass struggle, for one. Also, insurrectionary anarchists have pointed out that capitalism has "pressure points" (military installations, certain pieces of infrastructure, business meetings of a less dramatic nature than the G20, etc) and it seems smarter to address those instead of directing violence towards walls of force that have been built up specifically to respond to such action.

I'm also critical of the view of some Marxists that anarchists are simply tilting at windmills with these ventures. It often appears that Marxist groups in developed nations like the USA and Canada are also tilting at windmills, seeing as they have no real influence within working class communities, and have been isolated to cliquish academic ghettos in which debating such-and-such point of obscure theory is more important than actually doing something significant.

[Demogorgon]

Those idiots are there for a bit of fun at the expense of everybody else who is protesting.

Why do you think the press focuses so much on people doing this? Because it discredits the entire protest more. One brainless twit making a spectacle of himself can discredit ninety nine people protesting seriously. Those behaving like this of course either don't care or aren't bright enough to realise this, the former is usually the case, but to engage in an act of "protest" that makes you look like an idiot to the very people you are trying to appeal to simply isn't a very smart tactic.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I wouldn't call it vandalism. I do think some Black Bloc action is very isolating though. Would like to see someone who support Black Blocs say their piece on them, why are they useful in struggle?

Also as Explosive Situation said I don't think such action is exclusive to Anarchism although it is often painted this way and I don't know why this is addressed to Anarchists when there is nothing in our ideology which states that vandalism is a tool.

[TheSamsquatch]

It would make more sense to bomb the G20. I mean you have a mass of people with so much passion, but i guess the stopping point is that they lack the capacity to work together in a constructive way.

[bcbm]

oh fuck me


It doesn't? Seriously, there are lots of ways in which is hurts our cause.

your cause, maybe.


Lots of people consider vandalism really something worthy of it's origin for the word, Vandals.you mean the ones who sacked rome? yeah, what a bunch of assholes, sacking the capital of their local empire. today the empire is global and some of us want to sack the whole fucking thing, so hey, thanks for such a noble comparison.


They look at it as stupid kids that are doing it just for what you said, for fun. That hurts our cause.actually, i think the kids who aren't doing that are the stupid ones. have you looked around lately?


Plus, the repression of such a thing doesn't anger the working class because ''they had it coming'', they were being violent and stupid, so they're better locked up or something.because all workers love the cops:(


A peaceful protest shows that those who are in it have a bigger chance of being conscious, since there's less chance they're doing to for fun.what a telling statement.


Plus, they are being peaceful, and the repression of such peaceful protests is seen as much more undemocratic, and thus, sends a much ''better'' message to the working class, which is that the state will opress any protest, violent, or non-violent.i can just rent you a cross and some nails, its a lot less effort than organizing yourselves to get beat up by riot police.


It does more harm than good as there are better, more successful ways of gaining supporters.the rioters are not trying to "gain supporters," they are attacking symbols and agents of the social order that destroys their lives and everyone else's.

though, for what its worth, there have been a lot more anarchists around after every big riot than before.


Yes, but it's easier to fight back media misconceptions that we are evil if we were being peaceful and the cops attacked first. I'm just saying.we will always lose in a battle against the media. it isn't even worth considering.


I think such violent acts should only occur when we have enough people on our side, and things are starting to heat up.things are already heating up. a few more degrees (about 4, which could be possible by 2060) and things will get very, very ugly. the "waiting game" for the "right conditions" with "enough people" is a strategy for stagnation and failure. its about time to start making a qualitative break with the catastrophe.

---


Mate, from what i have seen on Indymedia et al, there has yet to be any violence at the G20 summit. Violence means harm to people and other animals.i'm pretty sure attacking things with hammers and rocks is violent.

---


I understand that the majority of people that dress in black and fuck shit up are total dumb asses, and really have no idea what they are even protesting. I get that.you don't understand anything.

---


Seriously, anarchists are always the ones at protests who do stupid shit that provoke the police to attack, yet doesnt get anyone's message across.the police will attack either way, or (even worse) they won't and nobody will give a damn about some burnouts holding signs. the anarchists get attention and convey their message.


Absolutely nothing. But teenage kids throwing bottles and molotovs at the cops because its rebellious (probably didnt happen at the G20 this time but they are the only ones who do this at protests ive been to or hear about) gets you, and others, a savage beating from the bastard cops just because you were near the "anarchists".why does this stereotype of "teenage kids" keep coming up? last time i was in a mass bloc, i don't think we even had anyone under the age of 18 and most were between 20 and 30.

---


Those idiots are there for a bit of fun at the expense of everybody else who is protesting.maybe if everybody else did something other than big, boring zombie shuffles that appeal to almost no one, attract no interest and are generally a huge fucking waste of time, they wouldn't need to worry about "those idiots?"


Why do you think the press focuses so much on people doing this?because fires and broken windows and bloodied cops makes for way better news footage than the 18 local communist parties nobody knew existed trying to sell some papers and yelling into megaphones about how those mean g20 leaders should listen to them.


Because it discredits the entire protest more.it was discredited before it existed because the g20 leaders don't give a shit. by the way, do you know why the g8 became the g20? massive riots every time they tried to meet. but the rioting (and, sadly, the "protests") continues because, unlike the protesters, the rioters have no demands to present to the g20 (or the police, state, capital, "everything that makes the desert grow") other than "fuck off," and i think that is a much more sincere and sensible demand.


to engage in an act of "protest" that makes you look like an idiot to the very people you are trying to appeal to simply isn't a very smart tactic.who says they are trying to appeal to those people?

---


It would make more sense to bomb the G20.

no it wouldn't. bombing is an isolated and clandestine act separated from the mass, unlike the riot which is always a group sport.

[this is an invasion]

oh fuck me



your cause, maybe.

you mean the ones who sacked rome? yeah, what a bunch of assholes, sacking the capital of their local empire. today the empire is global and some of us want to sack the whole fucking thing, so hey, thanks for such a noble comparison.

actually, i think the kids who aren't doing that are the stupid ones. have you looked around lately?

because all workers love the cops:(

what a telling statement.

i can just rent you a cross and some nails, its a lot less effort than organizing yourselves to get beat up by riot police.

the rioters are not trying to "gain supporters," they are attacking symbols and agents of the social order that destroys their lives and everyone else's.

though, for what its worth, there have been a lot more anarchists around after every big riot than before.

we will always lose in a battle against the media. it isn't even worth considering.

things are already heating up. a few more degrees (about 4, which could be possible by 2060) and things will get very, very ugly. the "waiting game" for the "right conditions" with "enough people" is a strategy for stagnation and failure. its about time to start making a qualitative break with the catastrophe.

---

i'm pretty sure attacking things with hammers and rocks is violent.

---

you don't understand anything.

---

the police will attack either way, or (even worse) they won't and nobody will give a damn about some burnouts holding signs. the anarchists get attention and convey their message.

why does this stereotype of "teenage kids" keep coming up? last time i was in a mass bloc, i don't think we even had anyone under the age of 18 and most were between 20 and 30.

---

maybe if everybody else did something other than big, boring zombie shuffles that appeal to almost no one, attract no interest and are generally a huge fucking waste of time, they wouldn't need to worry about "those idiots?"

because fires and broken windows and bloodied cops makes for way better news footage than the 18 local communist parties nobody knew existed trying to sell some papers and yelling into megaphones about how those mean g20 leaders should listen to them.

it was discredited before it existed because the g20 leaders don't give a shit. by the way, do you know why the g8 became the g20? massive riots every time they tried to meet. but the rioting (and, sadly, the "protests") continues because, unlike the protesters, the rioters have no demands to present to the g20 (or the police, state, capital, "everything that makes the desert grow") other than "fuck off," and i think that is a much more sincere and sensible demand.

who says they are trying to appeal to those people?

---



no it wouldn't. bombing is an isolated and clandestine act separated from the mass, unlike the riot which is always a group sport.


Fuck.

Holding it DOWN.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I think some of you are forgetting, or didn't realize, that the repressive police measures were passed essentially secretly before even the peaceful protests began.

Cops clearly showed that they were ready to intimidate, threaten, and even arrest or detain people without warrants for merely wandering near the fence (which recently was "discovered" to be not even a provision of the invoked Public Works Protection Act). So the idea that violent protesters are "provoking" police repression is just wrong. If anything, violent protests and vandalism are the reaction of angered protesters who see how ineffectual peaceful protesting has been. You don't "smash capitalism" by marching past a Starbucks window and chanting a few words or releasing statements about the G20 on a website the masses generally don't pay attention to.

As for bourgeois media's reaction, as has been said, it's not worth trying to convince the bourgeois press to view the overthrow of bourgeois rule in a positive way.

[TheSamsquatch]

no it wouldn't. bombing is an isolated and clandestine act separated from the mass, unlike the riot which is always a group sport.

A properly executed bombing, is instantly going to change things. That could possibly shift everything.
Or you could riot and waste time and energy. It's fun, i'm all for rioting, i'll riot, but a bombing is worlds more productive.

[this is an invasion]

A properly executed bombing, is instantly going to change things. That could possibly shift everything.
Or you could riot and waste time and energy. It's fun, i'm all for rioting, i'll riot, but a bombing is worlds more productive.

Maybe if you're high.

[La Comédie Noire]

The state is over aggressive and paranoid even at peaceful protests. At least with Direct Action normal people get a glimpse of what's really going on between the sound bites of everything's okay.

And where's everyone getting the idea that black blocker's are just doing stuff out of the blue without the peaceful protestors or residents consent? Some of these things are organized months, even years in advance and one of the first questions that comes up is "how comfortable would you guys be with this or that?" They've even split up into groups so people can choose how heavy they want things to get. This group is for those risking arrest/ serious injury, this group is for those who are uncomfortable with that.

We've got to stop looking at the black bloc through the lense of the capitalist media.

[StoneFrog]

Ok, to be honest because of what happened in Toronto its given me a great way to engage people with leftist information. I mean its gotten people thinking "who are these people, why are they doing this??"
And the weekend it was all happening i had several conversations about the issues that was being protested, and ofc the leader to these conversations was them talking about the "black bloc group". Yes its done some harm, but also brought questions to people about this group and the people whom where protesting in general. As long as we can talk to people whom see these things happening on the news its allows us a good opportunity to engage these people without sounding like we are going of on some random rant, which i think most people feel when we start talking about the issues.

[this is an invasion]

The state is over aggressive and paranoid even at peaceful protests. At least with Direct Action normal people get a glimpse of what's really going on between the sound bites of everything's okay.

And where's everyone getting the idea that black blocker's are just doing stuff out of the blue without the peaceful protestors or residents consent? Some of these things are organized months, even years in advance and one of the first questions that comes up is "how comfortable would you guys be with this or that?" They've even split up into groups so people can choose how heavy they want things to get. This group is for those risking arrest/ serious injury, this group is for those who are uncomfortable with that.

We've got to stop looking at the black bloc through the lense of the capitalist media.

Not to mention that probably a lot of the people in the black blocs were actually from Toronto. It was their city they were smashing up.

[Milos]

When you are under opression, violence may come as a natural reaction against it. Simply as that. Working class don't need to behave nice towards their oppressors anyway.

[bcbm]

A properly executed bombing, is instantly going to change things.

for the better, you think?


Or you could riot and waste time and energy. It's fun, i'm all for rioting, i'll riot, but a bombing is worlds more productive.

several hundred people learned their collective power, strengthened bonds and sharpened their ability to move and act together. nothing was wasted.

[Luisrah]

your cause, maybe.

Yes, so actually, please be a little more violent so they'll dislike your cause a bit more, and actually understand it might not be the same as mine.


you mean the ones who sacked rome? yeah, what a bunch of assholes, sacking the capital of their local empire. today the empire is global and some of us want to sack the whole fucking thing, so hey, thanks for such a noble comparison.

This isn't even worthy of an answer.


actually, i think the kids who aren't doing that are the stupid ones. have you looked around lately?

Maybe they are, and I agree with you, but until they're with us, on our side, vandalism and stupidity without an actual message sent to the people won't make us go anywhere.
Of course ''there's a message behind it'' and you know what that is? Those stupid kids were being violent and they got what they deserved.
- 10 rep for the left


because all workers love the cops:(


have you looked around lately?

I just hope you have some sense and don't counter-argument saying ''you seriously believe everyone loves the cops?''



i can just rent you a cross and some nails, its a lot less effort than organizing yourselves to get beat up by riot police.

Atleast maybe I could see that from my news channel in the other side of the world or something.
I don't even know if those kids got beat up by riot police or not, but don't worry, they will one day, and when they are, the proletariat won't say ''hey, poor people, they were protesting violently and the police repressed them, that makes me want to join their cause and be senselessly violent too!''


the rioters are not trying to "gain supporters," they are attacking symbols and agents of the social order that destroys their lives and everyone else's.

Yeah, though they are not trying to gain supporters (since that's how actually we have a chance at revolution, I mean, I think from what I've heard) they're actually succeeding at scaring off any potential supporters.


though, for what its worth, there have been a lot more anarchists around after every big riot than before.

Weee, next time we'll wreck 2 cars instead of 1, it's gonna be so awesome!


we will always lose in a battle against the media. it isn't even worth considering.

I'm not talking about the media. When someone comes over and asks you if you actually were being violent before the police repressed you, saying ''we were democratically/peacefully/whatever protesting against this and that and the police attacked first'' will probably get you more supporters than anything else.


things are already heating up. a few more degrees (about 4, which could be possible by 2060) and things will get very, very ugly. the "waiting game" for the "right conditions" with "enough people" is a strategy for stagnation and failure. its about time to start making a qualitative break with the catastrophe.

That's the problem. You don't know how to time your violence. I'm sure you are sensible enough to know that killing Obama won't make capitalism go away now. If someone knows actually that it was you (a leftist) who did it, things would go worse. Wouldn't them?
The only way such a thing would help our cause is when they have been discredited and the workers are on our side.

The same thing goes for riots and protests. Wrecking a car with your 12, 40, 2000 buddies won't help our cause in the same way than distributing propaganda, doing peaceful protests (which are easier for people to not be uncomfortable to attend to) and slowly build their trust, show them the truth, and sooner or later, you won't have to lure people with violence, since they will understand themselves that it is necessary (at a right time) for us to win.

You look like the frikin Left Bloc in my country which is all pro-European Union since they believe there shouldn't be any countries. Heck we believe in that too, but there's some sort of a process to get to it right?

[Ele'ill]

This is a question for the Anarchists.
My question is...vandalism? I've heard that most of the mainstream and labour organised protesters do their absolute best to separate themselves from the Black Bloc. And I've seen footage of Black Bloc protestors attacking police cars and stores.

Question. WHY!?!?

What on earth is the point of this? What could possibly be achieved by such petty acts of vandalism.

That's a catch 22 of sorts. If it's 'petty vandalism' then why are activists who are arrested for such actions getting anywhere from 2-22 years in prison?

My opinion on the matter is that property destruction as a tactic doesn't work unless it's executed enmasse and at the same time. The random actions that you may hear about that don't conincide with anything else are foolish and accomplish very little. I personally would never do anything of the sort as it makes me feel uncomfortable for a variety of reasons that I won't get into here.

The series of actions in Toronto wasn't petty and the price tag is going to be very high. The police have given an estimate of around 1,000 people involved in militant direct action that day. It sends a message that corporate greed won't be tolerated and that there is a disillusionment in regards to voting power and the like.

To quote someone that quoted someone else "You have a problem with people in black breaking windows and burning cars what about the people in suits burning countries?"




The police cars I sorta get, sorta. But when Labour and Mainstream protestors are actually trying to dissasociate themselves from the Black Bloc. And all the Black Bloc is achieving is the reinforcement of Anarchism as "A bunch of young angry people that want chaos." What on earth are you trying to achieve?A couple things here. The main falacy I see in this is that people using the black bloc tactic ARE regular organizers (some of course are not, as with any activist group) and that they are 'young'. The ages vary pretty drastically.

Those are two falacies that only serve to discredit.





As I see it, this can be anyone of three things...

This is either police sabotage made to deliberately make the Black Bloc look bad and to justify their own prescence (Which I think has been done before).

Some logical explanation that the mainstream media isn't commenting on.

Or just batshit stupidity.
I think it's likely that sabotage by the police occured or was attempted but not to this degree. I think it was a break down in communication and a gross mis-estimate of the numbers involved in the militant actions.



I also want to say that tactics are something heavily discussed within activist communities and while property destruction is still used it isn't used by or ok with everyone.





Also- I don't know if it drives anyone else insane to watch the videos of people hitting a window over and over until it shatters. If you fucking cracked it with the first hit then fucking move on it's broken- they're going to have to replace it- the goal isn't to turn the fucking thing into dust. Besides, when you shatter a window glass goes flying everywhere and can hurt people who are standing around watching.

So yes, to the original poster- I think tactics need to be discussed more often and I also think goals can be achieved without using property destruction as a tactic.

[Scary Monster]

the police will attack either way, or (even worse) they won't and nobody will give a damn about some burnouts holding signs. the anarchists get attention and convey their message.

So because people would rather not physically engage the cops, they are burnouts? Its true that the media does not give a shit about peaceful protests, but tell me, when in the hell have the media ever tried to explain the actual thing that anarchists are rioting about?

All anarchists do is fuck shit up. Ive never figured out how that would convey any kind of message to a non-revolutionary person at home watchin the news. What needs to be done is for u guys to take over a radio station or something. Dont get me wrong- I think violence is necessary in the defense of workers' gains from the eventual retaliation (or to combat a rise of fascism of the capitalists trying gain their power back) of the ruling class, but I dont see how settin shit on fire all the time brings us any closer to an armed revolution or anti-capitalist consciousness. From what ive seen, anarchists are in bad need of actual tactics. This might be different in Greece, but this is how it is in the US.


why does this stereotype of "teenage kids" keep coming up? last time i was in a mass bloc, i don't think we even had anyone under the age of 18 and most were between 20 and 30

It keeps coming up because its true. Most of em are teens. Ive hardly seen anyone older than early 20s do that kind of crap. Older ones must be the exception. I guess they think theyre badass with their mohawks and scarves over their mouths, smashing shit up for the hell of it.

[LebenIstKrieg]

I totally disapprove any kind of violence! However, I think I do understand the actions some of the anarchists have committed, as to lead the capitalists to revise their oppressive definition of value and ownership. To question all authority we need to question the definition capitalists have imposed on us, too! However, repeating myself, I do not praise vandalism, it does not show the true culture of communism

Your shiting me right?

[bcbm]

Yes, so actually, please be a little more violent so they'll dislike your cause a bit more, and actually understand it might not be the same as mine.

sure


This isn't even worthy of an answer.

you're the one who made the dumb comparison, not me.


Maybe they are, and I agree with you, but until they're with us, on our side, vandalism and stupidity without an actual message sent to the people won't make us go anywhere.

"we cannot bear this catastrophe any longer" is an actual message.


Of course ''there's a message behind it'' and you know what that is? Those stupid kids were being violent and they got what they deserved.
- 10 rep for the left

nobody will remember this in a month. it will not affect the left in any meaningful sense and, hell, it gives all the boring mouthpieces for whatever organization a chance to whine to the media and try to show people how good and nice and willing to play with our enemies they are.
- 10 rep for the left


I just hope you have some sense and don't counter-argument saying ''you seriously believe everyone loves the cops?''

there are hordes of people who do not love the cops, right now, at this very moment. perhaps they got a message from this: "we are not alone."


I don't even know if those kids got beat up by riot police or not, but don't worry, they will one day, and when they are, the proletariat won't say ''hey, poor people, they were protesting violently and the police repressed them, that makes me want to join their cause and be senselessly violent too!''

but if you hold enough regular marches, they will be lining up around the block to join you!


Yeah, though they are not trying to gain supporters (since that's how actually we have a chance at revolution, I mean, I think from what I've heard) they're actually succeeding at scaring off any potential supporters.

i don't think a "chance at revolution" is strictly a numbers game and, of course, one participating in a riot does not mean that they do nothing else in terms of getting organized.


Weee, next time we'll wreck 2 cars instead of 1, it's gonna be so awesome!

probably.


I'm not talking about the media. When someone comes over and asks you if you actually were being violent before the police repressed you, saying ''we were democratically/peacefully/whatever protesting against this and that and the police attacked first'' will probably get you more supporters than anything else.

would you mention you support dismantling the police, abolishing the capitalist system and taking control of the state with your communist party?


That's the problem. You don't know how to time your violence.

on the contrary, there is no time like the present.


The same thing goes for riots and protests. Wrecking a car with your 12, 40, 2000 buddies won't help our cause in the same way than distributing propaganda, doing peaceful protests (which are easier for people to not be uncomfortable to attend to)

this is a probably a crazy idea, but do you think that maybe, just maybe, all of these things can happen and perhaps might even have their own role?


and slowly build their trust, show them the truth

sure reverend.


You look like the frikin Left Bloc in my country which is all pro-European Union since they believe there shouldn't be any countries.

i guess that would be a reasonable comparison to my position if you were coming off of a week long bender.


Heck we believe in that too, but there's some sort of a process to get to it right?

i don't think any of us have discovered the scientific formula that leads directly to communism, so perhaps we should leave options a bit open in our fight to get there?

[Scary Monster]

Wrecking a car with your 12, 40, 2000 buddies won't help our cause in the same way than distributing propaganda, doing peaceful protests (which are easier for people to not be uncomfortable to attend to) and slowly build their trust, show them the truth


sure reverend.

He has a point though. The Black Panthers, for instance, did this by providing food programs and such to urban residents, as well as political education to fill em in on maoism and the political situation of the US.

[TheSamsquatch]

several hundred people learned their collective power, strengthened bonds and sharpened their ability to move and act together. nothing was wasted.

For what purpose? When are they going to actually achieve something tangible?

[bcbm]

He has a point though. The Black Panthers, for instance, did this by providing food programs and such to urban residents, as well as political education to fill em in on maoism and the political situation of the US.

i am not suggesting that we do not interact with others and make our positions clear, but i don't think it is a missionary form of work.


For what purpose?seems pretty self explanatory.


When are they going to actually achieve something tangible?i can't predict the future, sorry. though i do think improving our connections to each other is tangible.

[Ele'ill]

i am not suggesting that we do not interact with others and make our positions clear, but i don't think it is a missionary form of work.


I've said this before- there are a lot of anarchists that aren't afraid to work with other progressive groups to achieve things. In all honesty- regarding the demonstrations in Toronto- had there not been the property destruction not much else would have happened. Thousands of people chanting 'shame' 'get those animals off those horses' 'whose streets' etc over the course of three or four days doesn't do anything.

Sorry to say it but people are going to have to start putting their bodies on the line. Tactics need to actually vary- not just the groups and what they're fighting for. My frustration comes from knowing that there are courageous people willing to engage in property destruction despite the risk but they're not willing to try other tactics that might get them beaten, gassed and arrested. Social change isn't going to be achieved by running through the streets with hammers.

[Scary Monster]

I've said this before- there are a lot of anarchists that aren't afraid to work with other progressive groups to achieve things. In all honesty- regarding the demonstrations in Toronto- had there not been the property destruction not much else would have happened. Thousands of people chanting 'shame' 'get those animals off those horses' 'whose streets' etc over the course of three or four days doesn't do anything.

Sorry to say it but people are going to have to start putting their bodies on the line. Tactics need to actually vary- not just the groups and what they're fighting for. My frustration comes from knowing that there are courageous people willing to engage in property destruction despite the risk but they're not willing to try other tactics that might get them beaten, gassed and arrested. Social change isn't going to be achieved by running through the streets with hammers.

Exactly what i said in the post before my last one- All i see or hear anarchists doing is smashing shit up and setting things on fire without it actually being directed toward the overthrow of the state. Of course, peaceful protest also never goes anywhere. Ive never heard of anarchists even trying to make their cause known or get recruits or anything. At least the Black Panthers educated people in Maoism and guerilla warfare. They were more hostile toward the police and current state institutions, and more proactive in bringing about revolution, than the Anarchists (in the US at least) ever were. And by more hostile, i mean actually taking on cops who wanted to repress them, assassinate them, etc.

[Ele'ill]

I hear and see a lot of anarchists who are good organizers doing things in their community. I am an anarchist but I'm not afraid to discuss timing of tactics and be critical as all shit because it matters.

[this is an invasion]

Exactly what i said in the post before my last one- All i see or hear anarchists doing is smashing shit up and setting things on fire without it actually being directed toward the overthrow of the state. Of course, peaceful protest also never goes anywhere. Ive never heard of anarchists even trying to make their cause known or get recruits or anything. At least the Black Panthers educated people in Maoism and guerilla warfare. They were more hostile toward the police and current state institutions, and more proactive in bringing about revolution, than the Anarchists (in the US at least) ever were. And by more hostile, i mean actually taking on cops who wanted to repress them, assassinate them, etc.

You're going to hear and see what you want to. It isn't anarchists' fault if you are unable to see the large amount of organizing they do in their workplaces and communities.

[this is an invasion]

I've said this before- there are a lot of anarchists that aren't afraid to work with other progressive groups to achieve things. In all honesty- regarding the demonstrations in Toronto- had there not been the property destruction not much else would have happened. Thousands of people chanting 'shame' 'get those animals off those horses' 'whose streets' etc over the course of three or four days doesn't do anything.

Sorry to say it but people are going to have to start putting their bodies on the line. Tactics need to actually vary- not just the groups and what they're fighting for. My frustration comes from knowing that there are courageous people willing to engage in property destruction despite the risk but they're not willing to try other tactics that might get them beaten, gassed and arrested. Social change isn't going to be achieved by running through the streets with hammers.

I don't think real social change can come from summit mobilizations. I don't want to see anarchists and communists getting arrested at this shit, and not have the time or energy to commit to other things. If people are going to mobilize around summits, I would rather them run wild and smash shit, and not get arrested, than try other things that will land them in jail.

[Scary Monster]

I hear and see a lot of anarchists who are good organizers doing things in their community. I am an anarchist but I'm not afraid to discuss timing of tactics and be critical as all shit because it matters.

That may be so, but then this just comes down to individual experiences. But honestly, not tryin to sound like an ass, i havent really heard of any anarchist community organizations, apart from individual anarchists, unless you can fill me in on it. Socialists and communists mainly fill up that department, such as in the infamous ACORN, leaders of the black civil rights movement and, obviously, the Black Panther party, in addition to many others in my area.


It isn't anarchists' fault if you are unable to see the large amount of organizing they do in their workplaces and communities.

Examples?

[this is an invasion]

That may be so, but then this just comes down to individual experiences. But honestly, not tryin to sound like an ass, i havent really heard of any anarchist community organizations, apart from individual anarchists, unless you can fill me in on it. Socialists and communists mainly fill up that department, such as in the infamous ACORN, leaders of the black civil rights movement and, obviously, the Black Panther party, in addition to many others in my area.

Every anarchist I know is involved in their community.

[Ele'ill]

I don't think real social change can come from summit mobilizations. I don't want to see anarchists and communists getting arrested at this shit, and not have the time or energy to commit to other things. If people are going to mobilize around summits, I would rather them run wild and smash shit, and not get arrested, than try other things that will land them in jail.


The possibility of shutting down these meetings is there. It isn't going to be attained through property destruction. I'd rather see 1000 anarchists get beaten, gassed and arrested for shutting down the city via lock down than to see one or two get arrested for property destruction.

[this is an invasion]

The possibility of shutting down these meetings is there. It isn't going to be attained through property destruction. I'd rather see 1000 anarchists get beaten, gassed and arrested for shutting down the city via lock down than to see one or two get arrested for property destruction.

What will that accomplish if the goal is simply to shut down the meetings? Haven't they been shut down before? I honestly don't know the answer to that question. I thought I've heard before that a couple of meetings have been shut down. If they have, what did that accomplish? The meetings still continue. If they haven't, then the question still stands: what will it accomplish?

I would love for anarchists to shut down a city, but it would be completely symbolic and non-revolutionary unless it's sustainable and generalized.

I think it would be terrible if 1000 anarchists got arrested in one city. That would put most other projects on hold while they deal with legal shit for the next 6 months to a year. I disagree with the idea that the more sacrificed the more we gain. Like bcbm has said, these riots play a more important role than just hooliganism. They allow people to come together in a situation that most people do not get to experience. They get to run amok in a city, develop relationships with each other, learn to fight the police, and feel the exhilaration of being able to physically attack.

[this is an invasion]

Examples?
SeaSol
Modesto Anarcho
Anarchist Black Cross
Revolutionary Autonomous Communities
The hundreds of smaller, unnamed groups that are active in their communities.

Most anarchists I know are involved in some sort of project similar to the ones created by the Black Panthers.

[Luisrah]

This is pointless.

Wrecking a few cars won't help our cause as much as talking to people, organising meetings, some protests etc...

The normal guy at home will see you from the TV and say ''stupid kids''. The best that will ever happen is him understanding your message, but not be an anarchist (or atleast that kind of anarchist) because you guys just are violent for fun.

Truth is revolutionary, and the education of a comrade will make him stay with us, instead of it being a ''phase''.
An example is the Left Bloc in Portugal, once again. Instead of educating their supporters, they shout a few stuff like ''the government sucks!'', ''there's no freedom!'' and every hippie comes along, votes for them, and doesn't care in the following elections or in the period inbetween at all.
The Portuguese Communist Party however, has never made a stupid wrecking car contest, and its members grow slow and steady, but those guys that join, never leave.
The time for violence will come, but things like what we saw will just hurt our cause.

I'm out.

[bcbm]

This is pointless.

probably, but then, what isn't?


Wrecking a few cars won't help our cause as much as talking to people, organising meetings, some protests etc...


this is a probably a crazy idea, but do you think that maybe, just maybe, all of these things can happen and perhaps might even have their own role?


The normal guy at home will see you from the TV and say ''stupid kids''. The best that will ever happen is him understanding your message, but not be an anarchist (or atleast that kind of anarchist) because you guys just are violent for fun.

it isn't "just for fun," and you should probably stop projecting.


Truth is revolutionary, and the education of a comrade will make him stay with us, instead of it being a ''phase''.

yeah preach the one true faith brother.


An example is the Left Bloc in Portugal, once again. Instead of educating their supporters, they shout a few stuff like ''the government sucks!'', ''there's no freedom!'' and every hippie comes along, votes for them, and doesn't care in the following elections or in the period inbetween at all.

why do you keep making bizarre comparisons to electoral groups who have absolutely nothing in common with anarchists?


The Portuguese Communist Party however, has never made a stupid wrecking car contest, and its members grow slow and steady, but those guys that join, never leave.

most anarchists i know have been around for awhile too. turns out doing things together in the streets (and everywhere else) builds strong bonds.


The time for violence will come, but things like what we saw will just hurt our cause.

i doubt it. and stop saying "our."

[Luisrah]

why do you keep making bizarre comparisons to electoral groups who have absolutely nothing in common with anarchists?

They can't time what they say or defend, and their members come and go just like that.


most anarchists i know have been around for awhile too. turns out doing things together in the streets (and everywhere else) builds strong bonds.

Every communist I know has been around for a while. It turns out education actually makes workers conscious in terms of what they have to do to overthrow capitalism. Strong bonds won't make a revolution, and even if they do, I'm sure you know the dangers of a ''revolution'' without conscious workers.


i doubt it. and stop saying "our."

Ok. Yours and mine.

[bcbm]

They can't time what they say or defend, and their members come and go just like that.

like i said.


Every communist I know has been around for a while. It turns out education actually makes workers conscious in terms of what they have to do to overthrow capitalism.

the same things they've been trying for centuries without luck?


Strong bonds won't make a revolution, and even if they do, I'm sure you know the dangers of a ''revolution'' without conscious workers.

because anarchists don't have a critique of capitalism.:rolleyes:

[manic expression]

probably, but then, what isn't?
So you are nothing but a nihilist. That tells us everything we need to know about what you think, and how much it matters.

[this is an invasion]

Every communist I know has been around for a while. It turns out education actually makes workers conscious in terms of what they have to do to overthrow capitalism. Strong bonds won't make a revolution, and even if they do, I'm sure you know the dangers of a ''revolution'' without conscious workers.

LOL WUT


Ok. Yours and mine.
we don't have the same cause. That's what he's saying. Don't play stupid.

[Ele'ill]

What will that accomplish if the goal is simply to shut down the meetings?

It's the 100% goal in regards to direct action at these summits. You can break all the windows you want any other day of the year.





Haven't they been shut down before?

Seattle and it was a bit of a big deal.



If they have, what did that accomplish? The meetings still continue. If they haven't, then the question still stands: what will it accomplish?

If the meeting is shut down then it can't continue THEN. In regards to future meetings perhaps they will be shut down as well. It's people power in action.

I could make the same argument regarding property destruction. What good does it do to break some windows that are part of a million dollar insurance policy making sure they get replaced two hours later. Fuck that.




I would love for anarchists to shut down a city, but it would be completely symbolic and non-revolutionary unless it's sustainable and generalized.

Again, it would be more of a direct action than breaking things. "What do we disagree with? The meeting, the budget and the economic system it all represents. What did we do? We shut the fucking thing down."

Now replace shut the whole thing down with 'we broke windows and set police cars on fire'.

Goals. :rolleyes:






I think it would be terrible if 1000 anarchists got arrested in one city. That would put most other projects on hold while they deal with legal shit for the next 6 months to a year. I disagree with the idea that the more sacrificed the more we gain. Like bcbm has said, these riots play a more important role than just hooliganism. They allow people to come together in a situation that most people do not get to experience. They get to run amok in a city, develop relationships with each other, learn to fight the police, and feel the exhilaration of being able to physically attack.

As far as direct action goes they could have picked better targets and used different tactics. They can physically attack any time and the same blurred message would be broadcast within the activist community as well as from the main stream media.

[Luisrah]

LOL WUT

Without class consciousness, strong bonds are nothing. You know what I meant, stop being a troll.


we don't have the same cause. That's what he's saying. Don't play stupid.

I know. I'm not saying we have. I'm just saying those things hurt my cause and your cause as well. Don't play stupid.

[bcbm]

So you are nothing but a nihilist. That tells us everything we need to know about what you think, and how much it matters.

ad hominem, and a shitty one at that. come on, surely you can do better?

[Hiratsuka]

When you are under opression, violence may come as a natural reaction against it. Simply as that. Working class don't need to behave nice towards their oppressors anyway.

Heh, yet most rioters are too young to even know what work is.

[manic expression]

ad hominem, and a shitty one at that. come on, surely you can do better?
It's not an ad hominem, it's just a clear observation on how your politics is bankrupt. Yes, everything is pointless (your words), so why be leftist in the first place? Don't blame me when you make yourself look like a caricature.

[bcbm]

It's not an ad hominem, it's just a clear observation on how your politics is bankrupt. Yes, everything is pointless (your words), so why be leftist in the first place? Don't blame me when you make yourself look like a caricature.

off the cuff remark referring mostly to these sort of silly discussions vs. several years of political posts. hmm, which seems like it is probably a more accurate representation of what i think? take your time.

[manic expression]

off the cuff remark referring mostly to these sort of silly discussions vs. several years of political posts. hmm, which seems like it is probably a more accurate representation of what i think? take your time.
probably, but then, what isn't [pointless]?

It's an accurate representation of why your politics is a joke.

[BillKephart]

My answer:

Why not.

Private property is not legitimate. Any time you can fuck up a rich person's things I think you should do it. They are your enemy after all.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Disregarding Manic Expression's seemingly dogged intent to bash bcbm (sup man), my two cents: In my opinion, the Black Bloc in this context were manipulated by the police to justify the nearly 1 BILLION dollars spent on security. There were 19,000 cops in Toronto, possibly more; maybe a few hundred black bloc'ers were running around the city center, smashing windows and burning (two) cop cars (that were likely purposely put there). Anarchists were arrested during the action, but they were only a tiny fraction of the total arrests. Most of the arrests that day were of peaceful demonstrators after the Black Bloc finished up.

Just an example of this:

(http://illicitpopsiclecollective.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/tommy-taylor-how-i-got-arrested-and-abused-at-g20-in-toronto-canada/)

[bcbm]

probably, but then, what isn't [pointless]?

It's an accurate representation of why your politics is a joke.

i'll take that as a compliment coming from you. thanks!

[manic expression]

i'll take that as a compliment coming from you. thanks!
By "you", you mean someone who actually cares about political work and politics itself. What's funny is you apparently think you have a cause to fight for, when you don't. Like I said, don't blame me when you make yourself into a caricature.

[bcbm]

yes, you nailed it. thanks! :thumbup1:

[manic expression]

my two cents: In my opinion, the Black Bloc in this context were manipulated by the police to justify the nearly 1 BILLION dollars spent on security.
So the "Black Bloc" was played like a cheap fiddle by the pigs. Why defend such dead-end tactics, then? There are much better and smarter ways to protest that can involve allies instead of putting them at risk.

[manic expression]

yes, you nailed it. thanks! :thumbup1:
Yep, it's all pointless...only if it's coming out of your mouth.

[bcbm]

i like it better coming in my mouth.

[manic expression]

What, exactly, does come out of your mouth that's worth hearing? Tell me why anyone should take your views seriously.

[bcbm]

actually, i type pretty much everything you see on this site.

[manic expression]

You didn't answer my question. Go back and try again.

[bcbm]

well you seem to be spending an awful lot of time trying to convince me my views (which ones? all of them? why?) are a joke, so i must be doing something right.

[manic expression]

I'm asking you why your views are valid. It's not that complicated a question. Go back and try again.

[bcbm]

and i am saying because you think they aren't. also you didn't answer my questions- which ones? all of them? why?

[jake williams]

Subjectively I'm sympathetic. Most of the targets deserved far, far worse than broken windows (police, large corporations etc.). And everyone in the Bloc who wasn't a cop has a right to be fucking angry. There's more than enough reason to be.

But objectively, it doesn't seem to have helped at all and in many ways has been quite harmful. Some folks got to express their anger in a way which did at most as much damage to the supposed political or economics targets as quietly and inobstrusively chanting slogans which occasionally got picked up by the press. Earlier on in the week, before but a single glass shard was shed, there were some short lived and small scale non-violent occupations of at least one gas station, and some acquaintances of mine involved managed to get important political messages into the press (and you can't seriously argue the objective isn't the publicity; I'll repeat, broken windows does zero direct damage to targets sizeworthy enough to be targetted).

Breaking windows and torching cop cruisers (and especially in the latter case, it's blatantly obvious the cruisers were intentionally allowed to be taken and burned by the black bloc, whether or not agents provocateurs actually lit the matches) has also turned a previously sympathetic public against anarchists, radicals and protest in general. Public opinion, previously strongly against the massive security expenditure, is now firmly on the side of the massive police repression and the Harper security state. That's a major loss for the movement. The police had a clear incentive to allow the vandalism to happen, if not directly doing it themselves, which they may have, and allow it they did.

Unlike almost everyone on RevLeft commenting in support of window-breaking, I actually do organizing in and around Toronto, with radicals (whose politics I prefer) and with non-radicals (who are in much greater number). The radicals now have to deal with a split, one side obsessed with explicitly or implicitly defending a tactic utterly useless beyond anger-venting, and another actually engaged in trying to build mass movements, ie. actually trying to get anything fucking useful done. The non-radicals - that population which needs to be radicalized, to gain a radical understanding of politics and their situation in the world - are being scared off, and in many cases even being politically turned off.

The group which has objectively gained a lot from the property destruction is the police and the Harper state. Whether your personal feelings about the police are positive or not, objectively, the use of these tactics in Toronto last weekend was clearly in the interests not of movement building but of the state anarchists as a whole (in support of property-destruction tactics or not) claim to despise.



edit: Moreover, it seems that businesses may be fully compensated by the federal or municipal government, ie. by an increasingly worker-funded tax base, something working people have no reason to be happy about and which nullifies even the trivial cost of repairing a Starbucks window.

And if anyone wants to argue that the "general population" is emboldened by Black Bloc tactics to take on the State or capitalism themselves - the opposite has happened. Even ordinarily plucky radicals are more cautious about what they want to do - no one has been converted to a higher level of fightback against the state, and many people have been frightened away from work myself and my friends have been working very, very hard to bring people into.

[manic expression]

bcbm: All of them, yes. You can interpret the question in any number of ways, but do try to answer it. I'm asking because I'm curious as to your justifications for your political stances.

[bcbm]

my views are valid because they are awesome.

[manic expression]

Before you said they were pointless. Obviously, then, your views are invalid, because they are self-contradictory. Try again, child.

[jake williams]

my views are valid because they are awesome.
I'm pretty sure you're just saying that because you think it sounds really cool (or something to that effect), but it begs comment. The feeling I get from a lot of people who may or may not have been involved in the Bloc in Toronto last weekend, but who are at least supportive of their tactics, is that they are very concerned about being perceived as the most radical and politically correct person in the room, but not very concerned about making sure the only things I've ever seen work get done: organizing workers, students, the unemployed and the working class in general to collectively and intelligently fight for their rights.

As for the notion, a common one, that Marxist or Leninist tactics have been tried without success for decades or centuries whereas anarchists (or more specificially, window-smashing types) are somehow a) novel or b) overconcerned with results: labour and people's organizing, historically with Marxists and anarchosyndicalists at the political vanguard, has won high wages, the 8 hour day, basic bodily sovereignty for women, the end to legal racial segregation, public healthcare and education, and so on, only to mention some of the most concrete victories. Window smashing, as far as I can tell, has won police repression, as well as working pretty well for the Nazis.

[Os Cangaceiros]

As for the notion, a common one, that Marxist or Leninist tactics have been tried without success for decades or centuries whereas anarchists (or more specificially, window-smashing types) are somehow a) novel or b) overconcerned with results: labour and people's organizing, historically with Marxists and anarchosyndicalists at the political vanguard, has won high wages, the 8 hour day, basic bodily sovereignty for women, the end to legal racial segregation, public healthcare and education, and so on, only to mention some of the most concrete victories. Window smashing, as far as I can tell, has won police repression, as well as working pretty well for the Nazis.

It's a pretty big stretch to view reforms like abortion rights and civil rights as a result of "Marxist or Leninist tactics".

[bcbm]

Before you said they were pointless. Obviously, then, your views are invalid, because they are self-contradictory. Try again, child.

child? haha wow


I'm pretty sure you're just saying that because you think it sounds really cool (or something to that effect)no, i am saying it because don't feel any need to validate myself or my ideas to manic expression.


The feeling I get from a lot of people who may or may not have been involved in the Bloc in Toronto last weekend, but who are at least supportive of their tactics, is that they are very concerned about being perceived as the most radical and politically correct person in the room, but not very concerned about making sure the only things I've ever seen work get done: organizing workers, students, the unemployed and the working class in general to collectively and intelligently fight for their rights. i've never suggested that there are not huge deficiencies in what north american anarchist/whatevers are doing but i think the rush of people tripping over themselves to condemn people, call them cops, etc is completely disgusting and deserves a response.


labour and people's organizing, historically with Marxists and anarchosyndicalists at the political vanguard, has won high wages, the 8 hour day, basic bodily sovereignty for women, the end to legal racial segregation, public healthcare and education, and so on, only to mention some of the most concrete victories.so they've been a successful avant-garde of capitalism, improving its functionality and expanding its reach.


Window smashing, as far as I can tell, has won police repressionas far as i know nobody believes window smashing is the end-all, be-all of activity necessary to overcome capital.


as well as working pretty well for the Nazis.and you lost the thread, congrats.

[Scary Monster]

It's a pretty big stretch to view reforms like abortion rights and civil rights as a result of "Marxist or Leninist tactics".

C'mon now, you know damn well the labor movement of the 1930s was spearheaded by Marxists (namely the communist party usa before they grew weak). Marxists have been the prominent force in just about every civil rights movement of the 20th century in the US.

[jake williams]

It's a pretty big stretch to view reforms like abortion rights and civil rights as a result of "Marxist or Leninist tactics".
Not really. They were achieved by the popular organization and education and mass movements, which presently are and have always been advocated by Leninists. I wouldn't even think about declaring that they were solely the result of activities by Marxists or Leninists, as they never have been, and to suggest as much is a grave insult to the many other hardworking activists who have been involved in such historic efforts. What I meant to imply, and it's my error if I communicated otherwise, was that the tactics Leninists and many anarchists advocate, of mass mobilization, are contrary to those involved with individualized window smashing, in fact directly so, as recent events in Toronto have made abundantly clear.

[Os Cangaceiros]

C'mon now, you know damn well the labor movement of the 1930s was spearheaded by Marxists (namely the communist party usa before they grew weak). Marxists have been the prominent force in just about every civil rights movement of the 20th century in the US.

I never said anything about the labor movement.

And no, Marxist-Leninists have not been the most prominent force in many reform movements. To view otherwise is a common symptom of communists who like to characterize themselves as the vanguard of every mass movement/struggle; it's a nifty way for them to view history in neat little self-congratulatory boxes. Marxist-Leninists were not the majority of the feminist movements during the 60's (or even the prominent force), or the civil rights movement of the same decade. Know who else had a pretty prominent role in the civil right's movement? Church groups. Know who played a major role in passing reform laws and regulations in regards to the meat packing industry? The meat packing industry.

[griffjam]

The very use of the word ‘violence’ to describe the actions of protesters in the face of the police state we witnessed is ridiculous. Firing rubber bullets and charging with batons drawn is violence. A broken window is not. And even though some activists don't prefer property damage as a tactic, maintaining some amount of perspective is important. What is a broken window compared to a million Iraqis killed, or entire cities destroyed by the occupation forces? A whole lot of windows get broken when the bombs are dropped. Which is the bigger concern?

Property destruction is not merely macho rabble-rousing or testosterone-laden angst release. Nor is it displaced and reactionary anger. It is strategically and specifically targeted direct action.

After the 1999 WTO in Seattle do you know where the next meeting was? Qatar. No other city would host one. During the 2001 G8 summit in Genoa, the U.S. president wouldn't even stay in the country. They flew Bush to and from a carrier in the Mediterranean. Then they learned that to hold summits in places that weren't autocracies they would need to use overwhelming force. That's when the "Miami model (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEX6wNmISRY)" was created, named after the FTAA in Miami were it was debuted. The weeks leading up to the summit would consist of the creation of a climate of fear, labeling those coming to protest as violent and terrorists. Riot police would make no distinctions between militant activists, peaceful activists, or just local citizens (think Ian Tomlinson) and mass arrest as many people as possible, most will have charges dropped after the summit ends. Any journalists that choose not to be embedded, a tactic used in the Iraq war, with the police would be subject to arrest as well (Amy Goodman was arrested in St. Paul right after coming from the convention floor.) In order to prevent protesters from turning the host city into "another Seattle" the police would have to turn the city into a Tehran or Pyongyang (you could see this very clearly in Pittsburgh when the entire downtown area was abandoned and Pitt students were gassed in their dorms.)

Property destruction is not a violent activity unless it destroys lives or causes pain in the process. By this definition, private property — especially corporate private property — is itself infinitely more violent than any action taken against it.

Smashing a window, aims to destroy the thin veneer of legitimacy that surrounds private property rights. At the same time, it exorcises that set of violent and destructive social relationships which has been imbued in almost everything around us. By “destroying” private property, its limited exchange value is converted into an expanded use value. A storefront window becomes a vent to let some fresh air into the oppressive atmosphere of a retail outlet (at least until the police decide to tear-gas a nearby road blockade). A newspaper box becomes a tool for creating such vents or a small blockade for the reclamation of public space or an object to improve one's vantage point by standing on it. A dumpster becomes an obstruction to a phalanx of rioting cops and a source of heat and light. A building facade becomes a message board to record brainstorm ideas for a better world.

After this, many people will never see a shop window or a hammer the same way again. The potential uses of an entire cityscape have increased a thousand-fold. The number of broken windows pales in comparison to the number broken spells — spells cast by a corporate hegemony to lull us into forgetfulness of all the violence committed in the name of private property rights and of all the potential of a society without them. Broken windows can be boarded up (with yet more waste of our forests) and eventually replaced, but the shattering of assumptions will hopefully persist for some time to come.

The fierceness of the black blocs bears special comment. There were only a few hundred police in Seattle, and they more than had their hands full dealing with other demonstrators. Nowadays, on the other hand, there are ten times that number of police, but the black blocs are still able to wreak considerable havoc.

On the side of power they have the police, banks, media, courts, church, and military. It is antiquated ideologies that preach that liberation can only be achieved through the use of strikes and solidarity? Capital and the state wont hesitate to use everything they have to protect the institutions of property and privilege, yet some insist on leaving out valuable tools (mutual aid, theft, sabotage, and counter culture.)

Play with a full deck, they are.

[jake williams]

i've never suggested that there are not huge deficiencies in what north american anarchist/whatevers are doing but i think the rush of people tripping over themselves to condemn people, call them cops, etc is completely disgusting and deserves a response.
Firstly, we know for a fact that there were many police in the black bloc and that the black bloc vandalism on Saturday was just about the only thing allowed if not assisted by the police all weekend.

Secondarily, I've spent quite a lot of time lately not condemning a tactic which I can see as being counterproductive. Just about the only places I've made such condemnations are here, and with a very few close friends. In fact, I've on more than one occasion criticized friends of mine who have made more public condemnations of the vandalism, because as far as I can tell the main effect of such condemnations is to assist the mainstream media and the state in demonizing radical protesters and popularizing their narrative: denoting passive, social democratic protesters as okay while radical protesters are violent and dangerous. But I still think the tactic is idiotic, and that the tactic itself aids in such a distinction.


so they've been a successful avant-garde of capitalism, improving its functionality and expanding its reach.
This is why most people are utterly fucking uninterested in a politics which is itself uninterested in fighting for the reforms which substantially improve their lives. If you're objectively in support of the retreat, as opposed to the advance, of the working class's material conditions, then as far as I'm concerned we're not remotely on the same side. If you can't see how fighting for and winning reforms builds militant mass movements, then it's only a further example of the fact that you and your ilk are not interested in involving yourselves in them.


as far as i know nobody believes window smashing is the end-all, be-all of activity necessary to overcome capital.
I'm not saying you do, but some people certainly seem to. At any rate, I don't just think it's insufficient, I think it's counterproductive.


and you lost the thread, congrats.
Window smashing, especially of small businesses owned by immigrants, reminds a lot of good people of Nazis. It's a comparison I've heard made, implicitly and explicitly, and not just by the mainstream press but by ordinary people.

[jake williams]

The fierceness of the black blocs bears special comment. There were only a few hundred police in Seattle, and they more than had their hands full dealing with other demonstrators. Nowadays, on the other hand, there are ten times that number of police, but the black blocs are still able to wreak considerable havoc.
The police fucking let them do it! Because it was a massive public relations victory FOR THE POLICE! You really think that a couple hundred anarchists were so fucking badass that 15 000 riot police couldn't stop them?

[bcbm]

Firstly, we know for a fact that there were many police in the black bloc

there were likely just as many, if not more, police within the ranks of the regular demonstrators. in neither case does this make the non-police majority cops, agent provocateurs, etc.


and that the black bloc vandalism on Saturday was just about the only thing allowed if not assisted by the police all weekend.

and this makes the black bloc cops... how? i think getting 1 billion dollars and having tens of thousands of police on the streets and still not stopping a few hundred to at most a thousand individuals looks pretty bad on the part of the police.


Secondarily, I've spent quite a lot of time lately not condemning a tactic which I can see as being counterproductive. Just about the only places I've made such condemnations are here, and with a very few close friends. In fact, I've on more than one occasion criticized friends of mine who have made more public condemnations of the vandalism, because as far as I can tell the main effect of such condemnations is to assist the mainstream media and the state in demonizing radical protesters and popularizing their narrative: denoting passive, social democratic protesters as okay while radical protesters are violent and dangerous. But I still think the tactic is idiotic, and that the tactic itself aids in such a distinction.

fair enough.



This is why most people are utterly fucking uninterested in a politics which is itself uninterested in fighting for the reforms which substantially improve their lives. If you're objectively in support of the retreat, as opposed to the advance, of the working class's material conditions

i have personally fought for reforms to improve my life and the lives of my coworkers and i support those doing the same elsewhere and even in other fields, but from an objective standpoint reform has meant increasing the effectiveness of our exploitation, not any substantial damage to our enemies.


If you can't see how fighting for and winning reforms builds militant mass movements, then it's only a further example of the fact that you and your ilk are not interested in involving yourselves in them.

the movement for the eight hour day, at least here in the us, peaked before the demand was even granted on a large scale. most of the other movements you mentioned went into decline when their demands were partially or fully realized. none of them developed from reform campaigns into militant mass movements pushing for revolution and while certainly benefiting the affected groups, they also benefited capital.



The $5-a-day Workday

After the success of the moving assembly line, Henry Ford had another transformative idea: in January 1914, he startled the world by announcing that Ford Motor Company would pay $5 a day to its workers. The pay increase would also be accompanied by a shorter workday (from nine to eight hours). While this rate didn't automatically apply to every worker, it more than doubled the average autoworker's wage.
While Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attrition—labor turnover from monotonous assembly line work was high—newspapers from all over the world reported the story as an extraordinary gesture of goodwill.
Thousands of Workers Flock to Detroit

After Ford’s announcement, thousands of prospective workers showed up at the Ford Motor Company employment office. People surged toward Detroit from the American South and the nations of Europe. As expected, employee turnover diminished. And, by creating an eight-hour day, Ford could run three shifts instead of two, increasing productivity.


At any rate, I don't just think it's insufficient, I think it's counterproductive.

it has its limitations but i think it is important for there to exist some level of visible hostility to the state and capital and that this visibility, while unfortunately allowing us to be perceived by our enemies, can help us find each other and seek out other projects.


Window smashing, especially of small businesses owned by immigrants, reminds a lot of good people of Nazis. It's a comparison I've heard made, implicitly and explicitly, and not just by the mainstream press but by ordinary people.

the vast majority of black bloc targets were multinational chains or banks. i've heard few reports of small businesses attacked and the ones that were were things like jewelry stores- places catering exclusively to the rich.

[IllicitPopsicle]

So the "Black Bloc" was played like a cheap fiddle by the pigs. Why defend such dead-end tactics, then? There are much better and smarter ways to protest that can involve allies instead of putting them at risk.

Erm, I don't remember explicitly defending or condemning the black bloc...

[griffjam]

The police fucking let them do it! Because it was a massive public relations victory FOR THE POLICE! You really think that a couple hundred anarchists were so fucking badass that 15 000 riot police couldn't stop them?

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

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD5PP-JwXls


Judy Rebick's conspiracy theory article at Rabble.ca (http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/judes/2010/06/toronto-burning-or-it)

Rebick is trying to convince us that the Toronto cops allowed the black bloc to run wild, that the cops purposely left their cars to be trashed and that they could have arrested the black bloc earlier on when their wasn't such a big crowd for them to mesh with. She's tried this not only with her Rabble.ca article but with her appearance on a CP24 news program.

CP24 interviews Judy Rebick (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iaG1H0pDxY)

The problem being that she doesn't know what she's talking about and is contradicted by numerous sources of photographic, video and verbal evidence which show the scene on Queen near Spadina, where a police officer still inside his vehicle is under attack from all sides by black blocers, with other police scrambling in and one even tripping in her attempt to save her co-worker. Objects are still being thrown at the police and the officer who was inside later tells the Toronto Star that he was hit in the back of the head with a pole.

Black bloc attacks cop car with cop inside it at 0:42 seconds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOjGdvju-po)

Toronto Star article (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/829587--the-fire-the-accused-and-the-cop?bn=1#article)

The car was not burned until later, when the black bloc was gone and ordinary and not-so-ordinary citizens were having fun playing with the police equipment.

Citizens having fun with trashed police car
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDf8u5NATDY)
Another video shows a single cop running in to attack the black bloc as they smash police cars that would also be burned in the financial district.

Big-time-hero cop attacks black bloc by himself at 3:12 seconds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKIeDpqZdFI)

There is also video and photo of a line of riot police blocking the black bloc and other demonstrators from continuing at one intersection.

One of the police raids on houses prior to the riot was described by police as having busted a black bloc affinity group before they had a chance to join the demonstration and do their dirty deeds. Of course, we shouldn't take the cops' or the media's word for it, but at least this, and the many police visits and instances of harassment leading up to the summit, shows that the cops were trying to intimidate and limit the black bloc as much as they could.

The bloc was part of the large crowd at the start of the demonstration, and the bloc, unlike peaceful protesters, is known to fight back, so if the cops had tried to arrest them all at the beginning it could have provoked more serious fights and rioting.

In addition, the black bloc tactic is not illegal in itself, so it would have appeared undemocratic for the cops to mass arrest them before they had committed any crimes. It's far better for the police and their bosses' democratic image to try to intimidate anyone from taking part in the black bloc beforehand, out of the public spotlight, and then use cameras and plain-clothes or black-bloc-dressed infiltrators to do surveillance of the black bloc during the demonstration and to use that to do snatch-squad arrests during or after the demo.

Although the cops are known liars, we can see that there may be some truth to their claim that they had committed much in the way of resources to defending the fence and the summit site.

They may not have expected the route of the bloc, since it was thought to have been trying to ultimately go to the fence. They also committed many resources to Queen's Park, a site where they could anticipate making arrests more easily. The various groups of protesters and their different and sometimes chaotic movements might have presented some difficulty. And, as mentioned, the black bloc may have fought back at any point, creating even more chaos and more violent imagery.

A mass arrest attempt that didn't manage to net most of the black bloc could have left the majority of the bloc outside the net to go on about their dastardly business.
Rebick apparently would rather the black bloc didn't exist and that everyone just protested peacefully. But don't the police allow for peaceful protest, at least until the black bloc has done its thing? So wouldn't that make the peaceful protests the first conspiracy and the black bloc the secondary one? And if the cops are going to use black bloc tactics to crush peaceful protests they normally couldn't because of societal democratic values, wouldn't that mean that a black bloc or some kind of force like it is needed to fight back against the police and their state, since they won't allow us to even protest peacefully?

To bolster her Toronto conspiracy theory, Rebick bring up the Montebello incident where masked cop infiltrators were exposed and the cops admitted the infiltration. She neglects to mention that it was the real black blocers who exposed the cops, not the union leader who couldn't understand the word “police” in French. She also, of course, doesn't bring up this year's March 15th anti-police demonstration in Montreal, where masked police attempting to infiltrate the demo were physically attacked and driven out.
Rebick uses the term “agent provocateur”, as others have. But do the cops really need to “provoke” the black bloc or others into burning cop cars or smashing corporate windows? You can't provoke a group to do what it is already doing and wants to be doing. You can only provoke people into doing what they wouldn't otherwise do. This is what the cops are concerned with most of all about the black bloc. That the bloc will inspire others who would like to riot but who feel isolated and unable to. That the black bloc will “provoke” others into doing what they already want to, joining in the fun.
And we couldn't expect Rebick to mention how peaceful or non-black-bloc activist groups have been proven to have been infiltrated by cops as well, even more easily than the black bloc.

But the police are not all-powerful, as Rebick implies. They couldn't completely control the G20 protests, just as they couldn't totally control the Queen's Park riot or the 1992 Yonge Street riot or the black bloc at the Vancouver Olympics in February of this year. This is neither shocking nor a surprise. They must and did allow many peaceful protests against the G20 prior to the rioting, because they are paid to uphold a democratic state that allows for peaceful protest so long as it does not interfere too much with business as usual. They also work hard to prevent black bloc activity and to crush it wherever possible.

The cops certainly use the black bloc as an excuse to do mass arrests and quell peaceful protests, but they also are trying to disperse crowds and take away any cover for possible black bloc activities, as well as give the appearance that they are back in control of things.

Again, if the cops can use unfounded excuses to round up the peaceful, that means not-so-peaceful methods are needed to fight back and overcome the repression rather than concede to it or say that we should never fight back so that we can always protest. Protest is useful if it supports social movements and direct action. It is useless if it cowers at ever going beyond voicing dissent to making concrete changes because the police won't allow it.

The video evidence of the cop car attacks in Toronto clearly shows that Rebick is either ignorant of the circumstances she speaks of or is lying. Either way, it appears that the reality of many people, black bloc and otherwise, finding joy in the trashing, burning and mocking of police vehicles is an inconvenient truth for her.

Rarely has a conspiracy theory been so quickly and incontrovertibly debunked.

It could be considered quite ridiculous to think that the cops and the corporations wanted their property trashed and that the city and Canada preferred the image of rebellion in the streets, of a city out-of-control. One of the main purposes, if not the main purpose of the G20, is mere propaganda, an image of control, of the best of all possible worlds. Most of the important decisions are already made elsewhere.
We all know that the G20 was an inside job. And maybe the black bloc really are shape-shifting alien lizards from a secret civilization on the moon. But maybe we should use the time-honoured principle of sticking with the simplest answer rather than the most complicated and outlandish one. Cops harass, hurt and murder lots of people daily. So lots of people would like to see their cars go up in smoke. Cops aren't all-knowing, all-powerful and all-controlling and aren't used to people challenging their authority.

Not so shocking now is it?

The truth is the cops communications broke down during G20 (http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2010/06/30/14564416.html), the same thing happened in St. Paul during the RNC. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkZvtGCh5YA)

[jake williams]

there were likely just as many, if not more, police within the ranks of the regular demonstrators. in neither case does this make the non-police majority cops, agent provocateurs, etc.
Of course it doesn't.


and this makes the black bloc cops... how? i think getting 1 billion dollars and having tens of thousands of police on the streets and still not stopping a few hundred to at most a thousand individuals looks pretty bad on the part of the police.
I wish it did, but that's not the perception. Again, objectively: people were against the security spending and policing, then police allowed windows to be smashed and intentionally left police cruisers to be destroyed, and then people shifted to be in favour of the security spending and activities.

I'm part of an organizing effort where I am right now (near Toronto) to shift the narrative and popular perception away from the idea that black bloc vandalism at all justified the spending, against the narrative, consciously engineered by the police, that such vandalism indeed justified said spending. Part of the message we're trying to get out is that the billion dollars and the ISU didn't prevent said vandalism, but we're facing resistance on that front from the people who support those tactics and don't think they should be policed in the first place.


i have personally fought for reforms to improve my life and the lives of my coworkers and i support those doing the same elsewhere and even in other fields
Good.


but from an objective standpoint reform has meant increasing the effectiveness of our exploitation, not any substantial damage to our enemies.

the movement for the eight hour day, at least here in the us, peaked before the demand was even granted on a large scale. most of the other movements you mentioned went into decline when their demands were partially or fully realized. none of them developed from reform campaigns into militant mass movements pushing for revolution and while certainly benefiting the affected groups, they also benefited capital.
I disagree. For one thing, it doesn't benefit capital to pay workers more, either in wages, or in taxes and public services. For another thing, and I could be misreading you here, but are you implying that, for example, the New Deal wasn't won by popular organization? Was it won because FDR was a nice guy?


it has its limitations but i think it is important for there to exist some level of visible hostility to the state and capital and that this visibility, while unfortunately allowing us to be perceived by our enemies, can help us find each other and seek out other projects.
I don't in principle disagree that such tactics could have such effects, but it's quite clear that in this particular case they have had virtually no such effect.

I don't think, for one, that the hostility to the state and to capital is very visible. To most people, a distaste for Starbucks and for large panel windows is visible, and as chants like "Fuck law and order" suggest, so is a contempt for ideas that most people sincerely believe keep them safe, however mistaken they may be in believing so. The political intent is not very clear at all, except to people who are already involved in our movements. To make that intent clear would require work that I very rarely see folks who use black bloc tactics (and of course I have friends who do) engaged in - actually interacting in a decent and minimally respectful way with the hated "general public". It goes on and I know some very good people, including several quite sympathetic to black bloc and property destruction tactics, who do it, but I don't see enough of it. And honestly, I have a hard time seeing how the time spent organizing, participating, and potentially being detained in such actions couldn't be spent better doing the same outreach work.

It's also not the most effective way to get out and meet people when you're working so hard to conceal your identity.



the vast majority of black bloc targets were multinational chains or banks. i've heard few reports of small businesses attacked and the ones that were were things like jewelry stores- places catering exclusively to the rich.
I don't dispute that, and as I've already said, the targets in the main deserve a lot more than broken windows.

[manic expression]

child? haha wow
You act like one, you get called one. If you can't understand that your cherished "Black Bloc" did exactly what the pigs wanted it to do, if you can't recognize that you are unable and unwilling to relate to the majority of oppressed people, if you can't justify your views to the slightest extent, you are, politically, a child. Once again, don't blame me when you make yourself into a caricature.

[bcbm]

I wish it did, but that's not the perception. Again, objectively: people were against the security spending and policing, then police allowed windows to be smashed and intentionally left police cruisers to be destroyed, and then people shifted to be in favour of the security spending and activities.

obviously being there you probably have a better impression but from what i have seen in the media at least there still seems to be a fair bit of skepticism about the budget spending and the activities of the police.

and assuming the police did give the black bloc a free hand, it isn't like this is something the black bloc participants could have known with any certainty beforehand. a shame it went down this way but it means they need to re-evaluate their strategy and come up with a better plan for next time.

or not. because really this same discussion has happened after every almost summit demo for the last decade and i have yet to see anything meaningful come from it from either side, aside from a few places where it seems like they have learned some lessons and applied them.


I'm part of an organizing effort where I am right now (near Toronto) to shift the narrative and popular perception away from the idea that black bloc vandalism at all justified the spending, against the narrative, consciously engineered by the police, that such vandalism indeed justified said spending. Part of the message we're trying to get out is that the billion dollars and the ISU didn't prevent said vandalism, but we're facing resistance on that front from the people who support those tactics and don't think they should be policed in the first place.well, i think it is important to challenge the role of the police in society and keep the narrative firmly questioning the state generally rather than simply upholding the flip side of a "law and order" argument and saying the police should have done their job better (http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/11663).


I disagree. For one thing, it doesn't benefit capital to pay workers more, either in wages, or in taxes and public services.are first world workers more or less antagonistic to capital now than they were prior to getting benefits in wages, taxes and public services? capital isn't just about maximizing profit, it has come to encompass a total pacification of social relations in order to reproduce itself in every sphere.


For another thing, and I could be misreading you here, but are you implying that, for example, the New Deal wasn't won by popular organization? Was it won because FDR was a nice guy?i'm not suggesting at all that the struggles for benefits were not led in good faith by genuine pro-revolutionaries or were not mass movements or didn't force concessions from the ruling class, but that their ultimate result was the expansion, not weakening, of capital.


I don't in principle disagree that such tactics could have such effects, but it's quite clear that in this particular case they have had virtually no such effect.i think its hard to say immediately what the long term results will be. similar arguments occurred after the 2008 rnc but my impression is that there are more people involved in radical politics there now than previously. and of course for anarchist/whatevers who can't be in toronto, its nice to see even a minor "show of force" from our side- the anti-g8 actions in rostock arguably gave the whole movement a jumpstart.


I don't think, for one, that the hostility to the state and to capital is very visible. To most people, a distaste for Starbucks and for large panel windows is visible, and as chants like "Fuck law and order" suggest, so is a contempt for ideas that most people sincerely believe keep them safe, however mistaken they may be in believing so. The political intent is not very clear at all, except to people who are already involved in our movements. To make that intent clear would require work that I very rarely see folks who use black bloc tactics (and of course I have friends who do) engaged in - actually interacting in a decent and minimally respectful way with the hated "general public".well i'm not suggesting everything went perfectly or couldn't have been done better. i agree completely that simply smashing shit isn't enough; i think it should really be an incredibly minor part of our practice at this point.


And honestly, I have a hard time seeing how the time spent organizing, participating, and potentially being detained in such actions couldn't be spent better doing the same outreach work.again, i'm not going to argue there probably aren't better ways to spend time but if people want to spend their time in this way, i'm not going to hold it against them. a variety of approaches to the social war is a good thing.


It's also not the most effective way to get out and meet people when you're working so hard to conceal your identity.by finding each other i meant more that this is an "outreach" to those who may feel similar frustrations without an outlet and following an event like this they will hopefully get involved- this certainly happened post-seattle.


You act like one, you get called one. If you can't understand that your cherished "Black Bloc" did exactly what the pigs wanted it to do, if you can't recognize that you are unable and unwilling to relate to the majority of oppressed people, if you can't justify your views to the slightest extent, you are, politically, a child. Once again, don't blame me when you make yourself into a caricature.cool story bro

[manic expression]

cool story bro
Cool retort, child. Let me know when you can vaguely defend your views like an adult.

[bcbm]

i have 6342 posts wherein i do just that. have fun!

[manic expression]

You mean 6344 pointless posts...according to you, of course.

[bcbm]

you seem to still be misinterpreting the occasional off handed show of pessimism for the totality of my ideas. if there is anything you would actually like to discuss drop me a line, otherwise i'm going to just ignore you. thanks.:thumbup1:

[jake williams]

obviously being there you probably have a better impression but from what i have seen in the media at least there still seems to be a fair bit of skepticism about the budget spending and the activities of the police.
There has still survived a feeling of skepticism about the spending and the policing on the part of the general (non-activist) public, because both were so atrocious that it takes a lot of work for non-fascists to not have such a skepticism. But again, trying to be objective as possible, certain tactics seemed to have seriously dampened criticism of the state violence. Rightly or wrongly, but it's not about whether people are right or wrong to respond a certain way - it's our responsibility to be aware of how people are going to respond to tactics and deal with that realistically, if we actually care about the consequences of our actions.

The rise again in criticism of the spending/state violence is almost entirely the consequence of a very hard uphill battle being fought by organizers, and I think it's one being fought in spite of, not because of, the consequences of vandalism which few people understand and fewer are sympathetic to. It's also in response to a tactical error on the part of the police, because they attacked even pretty right wing journalists pretty viciously. One of the most right wing newspapers in the country had several journalists detained, and recently has come out with a stinging condemnation of the police tactics in general. I think, to be totally honest, the Harper state is getting ahead of itself in terms of what it can get away with. But the Olympic and G20 policing was a pretty gutsy move that, if nothing else, was a disturbing test of the waters on the part of a state increasingly flirting with fascism.


are first world workers more or less antagonistic to capital now than they were prior to getting benefits in wages, taxes and public services? capital isn't just about maximizing profit, it has come to encompass a total pacification of social relations in order to reproduce itself in every sphere.

i'm not suggesting at all that the struggles for benefits were not led in good faith by genuine pro-revolutionaries or were not mass movements or didn't force concessions from the ruling class, but that their ultimate result was the expansion, not weakening, of capital.
I was going to apologize for being a Marxist, but I'm not that apologetic. The ruling class always tries to reduce the material living standards of the working class, including in the "first world", and I'm sorry, but if you're involved at all in the labour movement I don't know how you miss that. The strength and militancy of the labour movement has objectively declined in step with relative material conditions. The last 40-50 years in Anglo-America and Europe have seen, in general, a decline in manufacturing industry, a decline in unionization rates, a decline in many cases in real income, an increase in work hours, a weakening of labour rights and protections, and so on. Their material conditions have fallen as the labour movements in the "first world" have been smashed. It's pretty clear and obvious.

It's true that at times the state attempts to use some minimal social democratic measures to placate workers, but the long-rung development of capitalism will destroy such efforts. The only social force ultimately capable of winning real gains for the working class is the organized working class itself, not the capitalist state, because the capitalist state quickly finds (or, to put it in more concrete terms, since the rise of neoliberalism in the 70s and 80s has found) that it's not worth it for itself.

What we have seen in the last several decades is an attack on the labour movement and, concurrently, an attack on the material conditions of the working class. The former allows and has allowed the latter. Rather than placating the workers, the threatened capitalist state ultimately tends toward fascism, not social democracy. That's exactly why we see shit like we saw in Toronto these last few weeks, because the fascist state has to flex its muscles. What we haven't seen is a capitalist class trying to buy out the first world working class - what we've seen and what we increasingly see is quite the opposite.


and of course for anarchist/whatevers who can't be in toronto, its nice to see even a minor "show of force" from our side- the anti-g8 actions in rostock arguably gave the whole movement a jumpstart.
Look, let me be totally honest here: I have had similar feelings in response to similar activities when they've gone on in other countries. Feelings to the effect of "at least fucking someone has the sack to stand up to this shit". In fact, to a degree that's even the case for a lot of what I've seen in Toronto the last little while, demos in Toronto are typically painfully tame (that said, the police aren't totally bullshitting that a lot of it is coming out of Montreal).

But the thing about it happening so close to home is - I think - I get a bit of a better view of the net effect, and I'm really not convinced it's positive. Moreover, I'm a lot less concerned about the effects it's going to have on folks like you and I, who might appreciate it and even be inspired by it, and the vast majority of everyone else, who I think are generally repulsed by it. If you want me to say what I really think, I think it's a little unfair to get excited by things that are in a lot of way messes for organizers on the ground to clean up, even if I'm sympathetic.


a variety of approaches to the social war is a good thing.
One of the most nauseating phrases lately is "diversity of tactics", because nearly everyone defending black bloc tactics etc. has taken to using it, originally because the media hadn't really picked up on the implication, and now to spite the media's demonization of the phrase.

Obviously we can't get anything done without tactical dynamism, it's a complex world and as we face different situations we have to do different things. None of us have a tactical monopoly and the development of tactics is something done collectively as a movement, through open debate. But I literally have friends who have gone so far as to say, I don't want to quote exactly, but it's not exaggerating to say that they have claimed that no one in the movement has the right to criticize any tactic used by anyone else in the movement. I think that's idiotic, not to mention hypocritical, because the same people are regularly critical of tactics they think aren't militant enough (and often, of tactics which have actually generated positive results). "[Respect for] a diversity of tactics" is often used as a catchphrase demanding exemption from criticism for the use or defence of tactics which, if not certainly counterproductive (at least in the present situation we're personally facing here and now), certainly could be argued to be counterproductive.

[manic expression]

you seem to still be misinterpreting the occasional off handed show of pessimism for the totality of my ideas. if there is anything you would actually like to discuss drop me a line, otherwise i'm going to just ignore you. thanks.:thumbup1:
I've been asking you to justify your views to the slightest extent, but you have failed to do so. That's not pessimism, that's bankruptcy. Do try to learn the difference.

[Fietsketting]

I've been asking you to justify your views to the slightest extent, but you have failed to do so. That's not pessimism, that's bankruptcy. Do try to learn the difference.
You know what is even more annoying. Letting things go and move on!

[bcbm]

stuff about the riots

okay i'm going to level with you and admit i actually am not all that down with the "goto summit and riot" model of action and dislike having to try and defend it to this degree because, in all honesty, i don't give that much of a shit. this comment from @news basically sums up a lot of my feelings on the subject:

"So at what point do we take these tactics that we are so proud of and apply them to a situation that is not totally predictable? We say "in the streets we will be uncontrollable" but how are we uncontrollable if we let them determine our ground in a ritualized way. And surely the spectacle that we have become in the corporate media is not "uncontrollable," rather it has become pliable to their purposes.

I am proud of everyone who had the courage to go out there and resist, but we need to eschew this highly symbolic and ideological resistance for an everyday resistance that cannot be predicted and doesn't happen in a pen they create for us. Let's get fucking creative and really be uncontrollable!"


i think in north america there is a big focus on these sort of highly ritualized and spectacular actions that might provide a bit of momentum but that momentum seems to be continually misapplied, where it becomes about seeking the next big event where people can "wild out," rather than trying to build a project that can actually begin mounting a challenge to capital.

i think you also have to realize that a lot of those going into the riots have wildly different motivations than you or i and appeals to "what the average person thinks" or "how it will affect the movement" are probably going to fall on deaf ears, for better or worse and so i think ultimately it has to be either completely disowning the rioters, which i won't do, or accepting their antics as something that will have to be dealt with whenever the g20 or whatever comes to town.

i've also been through this cycle i can't even remember how many times over the past few years and its really wearrying to see the exact same arguments happen every single time, especially when nothing changes and the end results are almost always things returning to the way they were prior to whatever summit meeting, aside from ongoing legal hassles (a good point to attack these tactics on, really). this is my impression of what has been going on in pittsburgh and the twin cities.


The ruling class always tries to reduce the material living standards of the working class, including in the "first world", and I'm sorry, but if you're involved at all in the labour movement I don't know how you miss that.

i think you misunderstood. i am not saying that capital does not attack living conditions or is not about maximizing profit, period, but rather that it is not always only about those things. its extremely adaptable and ultimately uses our struggles for reform as a means of strengthening itself by shuffling various interest groups and more effectively exploiting them.



The only social force ultimately capable of winning real gains for the working class is the organized working class itself, not the capitalist state

if capital will always attack the material conditions of the working class then there are no "real gains" to be won from capital, unless you think a constant (uphill) battle to win things and then win them again is netting something? the only real gain for our class will be the end of capital and opening of communist possibilities.

[Ravachol]

"So at what point do we take these tactics that we are so proud of and apply them to a situation that is not totally predictable? We say "in the streets we will be uncontrollable" but how are we uncontrollable if we let them determine our ground in a ritualized way. And surely the spectacle that we have become in the corporate media is not "uncontrollable," rather it has become pliable to their purposes.


This. I've said this many, many times, both on this board and in real life and I don't want to keep beating the same drum but it cannot be stressed enough that the tendency of the pro-revolutionary milieu to devolve into a ritualised spectacle on it's own with a set of fixed practice-fetishes is what is making it a paper tiger.

The entire notion of summit-hopping (and demo-hopping, which is very common in the Netherlands and Germany) restricts the sphere of conflict to a small subset of the total social terrain specified and contained by a ritualised ruleset, more often than not designed and molded by the state.

We need to break open the full social terrain, wherever capital's assaults occur and there are gains for us to be made, for struggle and transform the full reality of our daily lives into the battleground for the world civil war that is class struggle!



i think you misunderstood. i am not saying that capital does not attack living conditions or is not about maximizing profit, period, but rather that it is not always only about those things. its extremely adaptable and ultimately uses our struggles for reform as a means of strengthening itself by shuffling various interest groups and more effectively exploiting them.


The 'social factory' model of Capital, originating in Italian Operaist theory, has always been a very adequate description of how Capital constantly re-structures society and our social relations to both maximize it's profits (and maintain them during periods of intense class struggle). The 'social factory' is society as an extension of the 'real' factory, where the social terrain is molded to have the factory perform optimally.

Biopolitics are an essential phenomenon resulting from this. Biopolitics with a very negative character (migration control, eugenics,etc) are an obvious example but some biopolitical tools used to mold society have a more benign face. Providing a certain level of healthcare, shelter and education to the working class is required for Capital to function. While they are obviously nice, they are not 'class gains' (in the sense that they are not won through struggle and have not driven capital back). Capital will only provide society just enough so that it can maximise it's profits and we should not be fooled to mistake instances of biopower masquerading as 'reforms' for class gains.

[jake williams]

okay i'm going to level with you and admit i actually am not all that down with the "goto summit and riot" model of action and dislike having to try and defend it to this degree because, in all honesty, i don't give that much of a shit. this comment from @news basically sums up a lot of my feelings on the subject:

"So at what point do we take these tactics that we are so proud of and apply them to a situation that is not totally predictable? We say "in the streets we will be uncontrollable" but how are we uncontrollable if we let them determine our ground in a ritualized way. And surely the spectacle that we have become in the corporate media is not "uncontrollable," rather it has become pliable to their purposes.

I am proud of everyone who had the courage to go out there and resist, but we need to eschew this highly symbolic and ideological resistance for an everyday resistance that cannot be predicted and doesn't happen in a pen they create for us. Let's get fucking creative and really be uncontrollable!"

i think in north america there is a big focus on these sort of highly ritualized and spectacular actions that might provide a bit of momentum but that momentum seems to be continually misapplied, where it becomes about seeking the next big event where people can "wild out," rather than trying to build a project that can actually begin mounting a challenge to capital.
I basically agree.


i think you also have to realize that a lot of those going into the riots have wildly different motivations than you or i and appeals to "what the average person thinks" or "how it will affect the movement" are probably going to fall on deaf ears, for better or worse
I certainly realize that. I think there are a lot of people into rioting who are utterly uninterested in building mass movements and don't care that such tactics might be counterproductive in that regard. And frankly, while I might share many concerns with them about various shitty things going on society, I think those are political enemies. It's possible there's no way to appeal to some of them, sure, and if that case the only option is to clean up after them. But I think a lot of people on the edges can be appealed to, and it's worth doing.


i think you misunderstood. i am not saying that capital does not attack living conditions or is not about maximizing profit, period, but rather that it is not always only about those things. its extremely adaptable and ultimately uses our struggles for reform as a means of strengthening itself by shuffling various interest groups and more effectively exploiting them.
I'm not sure I misunderstood, but I disagree. Capital never unilaterally gives things up to the working class - it gives things up to a working class threatening to take them, and not at all on capital's terms. And it does so when the class judges it absolutely has to. After the capitalists, as a class, come to such a decision, the more "progressive minded" amongst them like to take credit for being so benevolent, but it's bullshit, and it's dangerous to buy into it. If the working class isn't prepared to fight, they'll take everything.


if capital will always attack the material conditions of the working class then there are no "real gains" to be won from capital, unless you think a constant (uphill) battle to win things and then win them again is netting something? the only real gain for our class will be the end of capital and opening of communist possibilities.
Victories amidst retreats are still victories. I agree that what ultimately has to be done is ending capitalism, but a) I think that intermediary victories are still valuable, because it's better to suffer less, and b) I think fighting for reforms is a strategic tool for movement building.

[bcbm]

I'm not sure I misunderstood, but I disagree. Capital never unilaterally gives things up to the working class - it gives things up to a working class threatening to take them, and not at all on capital's terms. And it does so when the class judges it absolutely has to. After the capitalists, as a class, come to such a decision, the more "progressive minded" amongst them like to take credit for being so benevolent, but it's bullshit, and it's dangerous to buy into it. If the working class isn't prepared to fight, they'll take everything.

i haven't at all suggested capitalism does things out of benevolence?



Victories amidst retreats are still victories. I agree that what ultimately has to be done is ending capitalism, but a) I think that intermediary victories are still valuable, because it's better to suffer less, and b) I think fighting for reforms is a strategic tool for movement building.

i'm not saying its worthless to struggle for reforms (though really only from what you say in a) but i don't think fighting for reforms will ultimately build anything other than a reformist movement.

[Ravachol]

i'm not saying its worthless to struggle for reforms (though really only from what you say in a) but i don't think fighting for reforms will ultimately build anything other than a reformist movement.

Well that depends on the nature of the 'fight' really. If we consider a raise in wages,preventing lay-offs,better working conditions as 'reforms' (which I do) it matters not so much what we demand but HOW we demand it. If these reforms are 'won' through a parliamentary order from above without any working-class involvement they are next to worthless as Capital will seek other terrains to exploit to maintain it's profit margins.

If the reforms are, however, won through hard demands from the working class through direct action (strikes, sabotage, etc) this does two things:

a) While Capital will obviously still seek another terrain to exploit more intensely, a blow has been dealt to it's hegemonic grip over the working class which chose to act by and for itself without using the 'appropriate' channels

b) Collective action and confronting Capital raises class consciousness and awareness of one's own power as a worker. One such struggle doesn't do much, but it lowers the bar for participating in the next one. Through confronting Capital as workers we produce a new subjectivity: that of direct class struggle. This new subjectivity (however vague at first) influences subsequent actions and opinions and will likely lead to more collective direct action in the face of Capital's assaults. Repeated cycles of these struggles are what eventually constitute 'living communism'.

[meow]

has anyone yet answered "why not vandalism?"?

that would be my answer. why not put color on the gray blocks of concrete? why not smash the windows of banks who regularly remove peoples very homes from them? why not attack police cars and stations?

it will not bring about revolution. but it allows people to vent there anger at the system. it brings people together. it hurts even if slightly the capitalists.

[IllicitPopsicle]

has anyone yet answered "why not vandalism?"?

that would be my answer. why not put color on the gray blocks of concrete? why not smash the windows of banks who regularly remove peoples very homes from them? why not attack police cars and stations?

it will not bring about revolution. but it allows people to vent there anger at the system. it brings people together. it hurts even if slightly the capitalists.

See, though, sadly, making total destroy at these summits may be cathartic, but it doesn't seem to be teaching anything to the newer folks coming in. They think the black bloc is there only as their personal plaything, and they use every opportunity they can get to fuck shit up, so to speak. As an example, look at the New York "insurrectionaries" who threatened a couple of women speakers with rape and bodily violence during the March education protests. They weren't cops; it was verified that they were part of the NY anarcho scene. I agree with the earlier poster that in some cases, these people are our enemies as much as our comrades.

[Invincible Summer]

it brings people together.

Clearly this is incorrect

[meow]

Clearly this is incorrect
clearly it isnt. i didnt say it brings everyone together. however it does bring together those people who vandalise. which is what i was trying to say.

[Ele'ill]

clearly it isnt. i didnt say it brings everyone together. however it does bring together those people who vandalise. which is what i was trying to say.


The problem is that vandalism pushes the majority of people away and at the same time the vandalism occurs during demonstrations where other groups should be able to not worry about getting beaten and arrested for stuff they didn't do. (I understand diversity of tactics and I understand autonomy- it still isn't cutting it)

I replied to another thread today and brought up the fact that I can think of nine people off the top of my head that are anarchists- fairly 'militant' but don't think property destruction is affective in many cases. They can't bloc up at a demonstration where other 'blocs' are rampaging through the city. Why? Because they'll get arrested and charged. It prevents anyone else from using any other form of civil disobedience that requires large numbers of people to be present and participating. The people won't go because they don't want to get caught up in the property destruction.



Here's another reason- or rather a potential reason- why property destruction and vandalism don't work.

This is a question for all of you- What do these company's insurance plans look like?

Until that question is answered we have no fucking idea if property destruction (corporate) is affective. If their insurance covers the damages then those in favor of property destruction might as well bring their own fucking glass and break it in the street.

[this is an invasion]

The problem is that vandalism pushes the majority of people away and at the same time the vandalism occurs during demonstrations where other groups should be able to not worry about getting beaten and arrested for stuff they didn't do. (I understand diversity of tactics and I understand autonomy- it still isn't cutting it)

I replied to another thread today and brought up the fact that I can think of nine people off the top of my head that are anarchists- fairly 'militant' but don't think property destruction is affective in many cases. They can't bloc up at a demonstration where other 'blocs' are rampaging through the city. Why? Because they'll get arrested and charged. It prevents anyone else from using any other form of civil disobedience that requires large numbers of people to be present and participating. The people won't go because they don't want to get caught up in the property destruction.



Here's another reason- or rather a potential reason- why property destruction and vandalism don't work.

This is a question for all of you- What do these company's insurance plans look like?

Until that question is answered we have no fucking idea if property destruction (corporate) is affective. If their insurance covers the damages then those in favor of property destruction might as well bring their own fucking glass and break it in the street.

Maybe we should move away from street marches and civil disobedience and turn towards organizing our neighborhoods and workplaces.

[Wolf Larson]

Out of total frustration.


"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."

I can dig it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJKbDz4EZio

Now to all the Stalinists condemning Anarchists in this thread. Give me a real, tangible and provable/verifiable list of what you've done.

Anarchists smashing windows isn't necessarily done with the goal of bringing about socialism but more so with the goal of "breaking the spell" the capitalists have on the entire population.

The real question is why aren't more people smashing windows? Thats the real problem.

[Wolf Larson]

You act like one, you get called one. If you can't understand that your cherished "Black Bloc" did exactly what the pigs wanted it to do, if you can't recognize that you are unable and unwilling to relate to the majority of oppressed people, if you can't justify your views to the slightest extent, you are, politically, a child. Once again, don't blame me when you make yourself into a caricature.

I'm not sure you live in reality. You should be criticizing the reactionary elements within the working class you cherish so much. Flag toting white working class FOX News patriots.

Blah blah....anarchists are keeping the population from becoming class conscious. Ya sure...ugh hugh. It has nothing to do with the brainwashed swarming masses who are hooked on the reality capitalism has created.

We need to BREAK THAT SPELL in any and all ways possible.

[Widerstand]

Out of total frustration.


"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."

I can dig it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJKbDz4EZio

Now to all the Stalinists condemning Anarchists in this thread. Give me a real, tangible and provable/verifiable list of what you've done.

Anarchists smashing windows isn't necessarily done with the goal of bringing about socialism but more so with the goal of "breaking the spell" the capitalists have on the entire population.

The real question is why aren't more people smashing windows? Thats the real problem.

I can agree with that, but vandalism is still alienating to your average protester, gives the police more excuses for applying force, and is as such threatening to sabotage the build up of a mass movement.

But yes, I see it's appeal as a symbolic act, and I do think there's some truth in Crimethinc.'s justification of vandalism as a necessity for protests to be taken serious. But only some, because it implies that attention from the authorities was somehow needed for the struggle to be won, which is, as I see it, a reformist attitude? Of course it can be applied where reformist goals are pursued.

[Wolf Larson]

I can agree with that, but vandalism is still alienating to your average protester, gives the police more excuses for applying force, and is as such threatening to sabotage the build up of a mass movement.

But yes, I see it's appeal as a symbolic act, and I do think there's some truth in Crimethinc.'s justification of vandalism as a necessity for protests to be taken serious. But only some, because it implies that attention from the authorities was somehow needed for the struggle to be won, which is, as I see it, a reformist attitude? Of course it can be applied where reformist goals are pursued.

They will beat people peaceful or not.

Lets all just sit by and peacefully let G20 happen. Give no substantive resistance at all outside of 'protest zones'.

Smashing a window is nothing compared to a cop shooting Oscar Grant in the back (murder). Show me an anarchist murdering some one and we'll compare the two. Vandalism is happening because murder is happening on a massive (global) and local scale.

The question is, what the fuck is wrong with the people who are too caught up in the reality capitalism has created?

PS. Look up what Albert Meltzer said about pacifism ;)



http://books.google.com/books?id=CJhCvx_Z0CAC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=Albert+Meltzer+pacifism&source=bl&ots=Tjljy-GA8B&sig=9jWm3ITh_xo7RyaREZusHDcllQ8&hl=en&ei=J-I3TO_fGpLWtQOwsehR&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Ele'ill]

Maybe we should move away from street marches and civil disobedience and turn towards organizing our neighborhoods and workplaces

This is an important point for a couple different reasons.

The left can't get comfortable just knowing their activist friends. They need to know their neighbors and neighborhoods. We need community to keep the actions and demonstrations 'stuck'. Otherwise the actions and demonstrations just evaporate into nothing.

I've been around lots of organizers and activists that play favorite- they'll talk to the easy to talk to people but will generally avoid social challenges. We need to push people to feel comfortable during an action or demonstration. Autonomy makes this difficult because we don't want a 'leader' but what I'd want if I were new to activism is a mentor that could guide me through various processes so that I'd feel comfortable.

It isn't babysitting it's teaching.




My second point is that marches, demonstrations and actions are going to continue into the distant future and if they're going to continue they might as well be affective because organizing and having affective marches, demonstrations and actions is an attainable goal that I would never write off.

[Ele'ill]

Before this discussion continues we need to determine if property destruction in the way it's being used is affective.

Burning down a factory is much different than broken windows.

How much does insurance cover for the damages?

[Wolf Larson]

This is an important point for a couple different reasons.

The left can't get comfortable just knowing their activist friends. They need to know their neighbors and neighborhoods. We need community to keep the actions and demonstrations 'stuck'. Otherwise the actions and demonstrations just evaporate into nothing.

My second point is that marches, demonstrations and actions are going to continue into the distant future and if they're going to continue they might as well be affective because organizing and having affective marches, demonstrations and actions is an attainable goal that I would never write off.

Because the suburbs are filled with reactionaries. We should go there and break windows :)

[Ele'ill]

Ok since nobody else is interested in looking up the info on property destruction and insurance policies I'm going to and I'll post my findings here.

[Widerstand]

They will beat people peaceful or not.

I know, but they'll have a harder time justifying it when there are no vandals around.



PS. Look up what Albert Meltzer said about pacifism ;)

http://books.google.com/books?id=CJhCvx_Z0CAC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=Albert+Meltzer+pacifism&source=bl&ots=Tjljy-GA8B&sig=9jWm3ITh_xo7RyaREZusHDcllQ8&hl=en&ei=J-I3TO_fGpLWtQOwsehR&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

I wasn't impressed at all. It's just a bunch of straw mans against historical pacifists. He argues that pacifism is authoritarian for using force to oppress people. A) How is it pacifist if it uses force. B) Isn't it the force used that is authoritarian?

It's also highly inapplicable to what I myself define as pacifist, maybe it's just that my understanding of the word is grossly different from his/yours, but I consider pacifism as a personal choice, not as some doctrine the revolution must follow, though of course it would be preferred.

[Ele'ill]

http://www.onebusinessinsurance.co.uk/BusinessInterruptionInsurance.aspx

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-operations/insurance/insurance-types.html


I don't know if i'm missing something and my asking this question was genuine. I simply don't know the details.

I think this is sort of like people trying to boycott a specific oil company. The gas in the holding tanks/gas station at a BP gas station isn't necessarily BP gas and the owner of the station is likely someone from your community. BP doesn't get hurt when you stop using their stations as they only collect a small amount of money per gas purchase.


If insurance is covering these companies that are extremely rich to begin with than property destruction is useless as it's currently being used- even if the insurance rates go up.

[bcbm]

The problem is that vandalism pushes the majority of people away

so does talking about communism or anarchism or pushing the idea that the government/cops are worthless and need to be removed. obviously we need to be aware of "public opinion" but letting it completely dictate our tactics and strategy is a death sentence.


and at the same time the vandalism occurs during demonstrations where other groups should be able to not worry about getting beaten and arrested for stuff they didn't do. (I understand diversity of tactics and I understand autonomy- it still isn't cutting it)

you're pushing the completely imaginary position that if there isn't any violence from the protesters the police will be completely friendly in their dealings with a demonstration. for one, the police need no excuse to attack demonstrations and this has been made clear by their actions countless times. i think it is also worth considering that if the police (and by extension, the state) feel no need to disrupt proceedings, then they probably are not threatening the state in any way. look at what happened in oakland... how much energy was spent by the city in trying to convince people to go to state sanctioned places to "express emotions in a peaceful way," ie in a way that doesn't threaten the status quo. any position is acceptable to the state as long as it has no real consequences.


I replied to another thread today and brought up the fact that I can think of nine people off the top of my head that are anarchists- fairly 'militant' but don't think property destruction is affective in many cases.

i don't think anybody believes property destruction is the end all, be all of our tactics and if they do they're a fucking idiot. i am not saying you are doing this, but there seems to be a tremendous effort to paint people who support black bloc tactics as only supportive of that and having no other conception of how to move forward, which is quite obviously bullshit.


It prevents anyone else from using any other form of civil disobedience that requires large numbers of people to be present and participating.

seattle, prague, and countless other examples show this to be bullshit. even at the rnc in 2008, the peaceful demonstrators were not affected very much by the attacks in the surrounding areas.


The people won't go because they don't want to get caught up in the property destruction.

for the past few years the property destruction has been physically seperated from the peaceful marches. and i think its pretty absurd to suggest they would want to do civil disobedience, ie getting arrested but are afraid that if property destruction happens they will... get arrested?


Here's another reason- or rather a potential reason- why property destruction and vandalism don't work.

This is a question for all of you- What do these company's insurance plans look like?

Until that question is answered we have no fucking idea if property destruction (corporate) is affective. If their insurance covers the damages then those in favor of property destruction might as well bring their own fucking glass and break it in the street.

where has anyone suggested that property destruction is a way to actually damage a company's profit margin? i've been around the block a few times and i have never met anyone who is out to put a dent in profits. by its very nature summit protest vandalism is a spectacular effort, not a monetary one.

[Ele'ill]

so does talking about communism or anarchism or pushing the idea that the government/cops are worthless and need to be removed.

It pushes those people away who would be likely willing to organize and demonstrate which is a valuable group of people.

The people that don't yet understand leftist struggle are less of a concern because they probably don't know that the demonstration even occurred.




obviously we need to be aware of "public opinion" but letting it completely dictate our tactics and strategy is a death sentence.

I have yet to be in an anarchist march where something wasn't broken. 'Public Opinion' is rather important when you're no where near the numbers needed to do just about anything.




you're pushing the completely imaginary position that if there isn't any violence from the protesters the police will be completely friendly in their dealings with a demonstration.

I never once suggested that the police are going to remain totally friendly- that would be YOUR imaginary position otherwise known as a strawman.


It's the timing that's problematic. It doesn't allow other demonstrators to get their plans rolling.









for one, the police need no excuse to attack demonstrations and this has been made clear by their actions countless times.

Just the opposite. The last several demonstrations I've been too the police have waited for someone to do something stupid and then they attack everyone- sometimes the group causing the problems other times unrelated people like press/journalists. They do this because they do need public support- they're not stupid and are unafraid to use events as pure PR.

The main concern of mine is that the police are going to go into a 'code red' mode as soon as the bloc starts breaking shit. This means they're going to lock down the city before anybody gets into a strategic position.




i think it is also worth considering that if the police (and by extension, the state) feel no need to disrupt proceedings, then they probably are not threatening the state in any way. look at what happened in oakland... how much energy was spent by the city in trying to convince people to go to state sanctioned places to "express emotions in a peaceful way," ie in a way that doesn't threaten the status quo. any position is acceptable to the state as long as it has no real consequences.

Nice strawman, again.

I'm not advocating following the rules or being peaceful. I'm speaking out against property destruction because it serves absolutely no purpose at all in the way it's being used at street demonstrations.

I'm advocating aggressive nonviolent civil disobedience. Rather than break a window that will be replaced the next day and covered under insurance why not use the tactics that I cannot talk about here for obvious reasons.





i don't think anybody believes property destruction is the end all, be all of our tactics and if they do they're a fucking idiot. i am not saying you are doing this, but there seems to be a tremendous effort to paint people who support black bloc tactics as only supportive of that and having no other conception of how to move forward, which is quite obviously bullshit.

Property destruction doesn't work. They are not inflicting monetary damage against their targets.




seattle, prague, and countless other examples show this to be bullshit. even at the rnc in 2008, the peaceful demonstrators were not affected very much by the attacks in the surrounding areas.

The demonstrations in Seattle worked and the meetings and city were shut down NOT because anarchists broke windows but because an ecclectic group of activists were brave enough to sit down in lock down and hold their positions.




for the past few years the property destruction has been physically seperated from the peaceful marches. and i think its pretty absurd to suggest they would want to do civil disobedience, ie getting arrested but are afraid that if property destruction happens they will... get arrested?

I've talked to lots of people about this and it's true. They don't want to break windows because it's ineffective- the charges are steeper- and because they know from experience that they can accomplish more using other tactics.




where has anyone suggested that property destruction is a way to actually damage a company's profit margin?

99% of the people I've talked to suggest this because they know that it's their last hope at justifying their petty hooliganism and child-like antics.



i've been around the block a few times and i have never met anyone who is out to put a dent in profits. by its very nature summit protest vandalism is a spectacular effort, not a monetary one.


So it's all for show? :lol: :laugh:

Why don't they want cameras on the actions then?


This doesn't make sense- what about all the autonomous actions in the middle of the night where store fronts are targeted?

What about non summit demonstrations where it isn't a spectacle and the idea is very obviously to try and inflict monetary damages.

These make up the majority of the incidents- not the summit events.

[Ele'ill]

Something else just came to mind and I hope nobody minds me making numerous posts rather than simply editing my above post.

We don't need spectacles (apparently that's what property destruction is) that the media is going to heavily slant as hooliganism and thuggery- or petty acts by teenagers. I know it isn't quite like that but that's what the majority of people see on TV.

We don't need that shit when other demonstrators use other tactics because those other tactics get washed out in the buzz.

I am also fairly critical as to why other tactics aren't used. I don't think property destruction is single handedly responsible for incompetent street demonstrations.

[Wolf Larson]

I know, but they'll have a harder time justifying it when there are no vandals around.



I wasn't impressed at all. It's just a bunch of straw mans against historical pacifists. He argues that pacifism is authoritarian for using force to oppress people. A) How is it pacifist if it uses force. B) Isn't it the force used that is authoritarian?

It's also highly inapplicable to what I myself define as pacifist, maybe it's just that my understanding of the word is grossly different from his/yours, but I consider pacifism as a personal choice, not as some doctrine the revolution must follow, though of course it would be preferred.
anarchism and pacifism are oil and water. you cant hunger strike capitalism away.

[Widerstand]

Oh I see, you have to kill all the evil people, right? Why the fuck am I even responding to this ad hominem crap? My choice not to hurt people is in no way related to the discussion of vandalism.

[Wolf Larson]

Oh I see, you have to kill all the evil people, right? Why the fuck am I even responding to this ad hominem crap? My choice not to hurt people is in no way related to the discussion of vandalism.

jesus lord.....yes i would say you being a pacifist has everything to do with your opposition to vandalism. what didnt you like about meltzer? it's quite true the pacifist mad scientist pushed for america to use nuclear bombs. bakunin, goldman, berkman etc all would have agreed with meltzer.

you cant hunger strike capitalism away.

[Ravachol]

Oh I see, you have to kill all the evil people, right? Why the fuck am I even responding to this ad hominem crap? My choice not to hurt people is in no way related to the discussion of vandalism.

While I understand the emotional attachment to such a choice, it is by no class neutral.

While I'm not an Insurrectionary, I'll quote 'Against war and pacifist bliss' from Killing King Abacus:



The pacifist abhors war and blesses the state. In times of peace, he has been taught--and he has believed--that society is a vast system of communication where all controls itself by means of dialogue, in a nonviolent manner. It follows from this that only one who, living on the periphery of these communicating vessels, mocks the hopeless cornerstone of vain democratic chattering with blows is candidate to suffer brute force.

Though he implicitly recognizes in this way that this society is not only dialogue but also violence, the pacifist citizen is not excessively worried by this: the violence is destined for others, for the new savages who have not yet acquired a proper communicative humanity and who deduce from this that society is much more violent from the sweet force of words that support a round table. The pacifist elevates the nonviolent image to a supreme principle--in which the peaceful course of capitalist affairs reflects itself--which mediated society gives itself.

When a state starts a war, the pacifist citizen orders it, "in the name of the people", to conform to this idealized representation of daily life. Imbued with that idea of Rights which the state imposes for worship, he refuses to recognize how the state monopoly on violence, that by which countries guarantee the respect manu militari of the law corresponds, with armies in state to state relations; and when two powers collide it is war that has the final word. Thus, as she glances with nonchalance on the police reduction of democratic dialogue in the affairs of internal politics, the pacifist citizen insists upon the exclusive use of words in foreign affairs: upon negotiation. He wants one without the other, as if one could be able to have Rights without violence, the state without war, the principle without the consequences that derive from it. Far from recovering from seeing these murderous consequences and from allowing the principle from which they emanate to be put into doubt, the pacifist invokes the principle of Rights against violence--which is the reverse side of it--and draws from this irrational process the moral superiority which he decorates himself with: "What stupidity, war!"

Thus, questioning his own rulers and accusing them of unawareness and irresponsibility, the pacifist would be candid as advisor to the prince with the purpose of shedding light upon the real interests of the nation. And the less he is listened to, the more satisfied he is to have accomplished the proper duty of the citizen: to tell the government what he thinks of public affairs--and so much the worse for the head of state, if he finds himself condemned by moral conscience. As long as the citizen, addressing herself to government, recognizes the legitimacy of the state, the state is able to act more as it pleases because, unlike the pacifist citizen, it does not deny the possibility of compensating for the gaps in its discourse, when necessary, by putting forth its own potential for destruction, flying squad included.


The core of this argument is outlined in Peter Gelderloos' "How nonviolence protects the state" as well. In essence, pacifism does several things:

1) It reproduces the authority and legitimacy of the state as the rightfull holder of a monopoly on violence.

2) It reproduces the notion of a 'zero-level' violence in everyday life, war, riots and physical confrontation with the police are seen as exceptions to the supposed tranquility of everyday life, thus ignoring (and by extension, legitimizing) the violence inherent to the everyday operations of the system (the violent protection of 'private property', the enforcement of bourgeoisie laws and the very existence of the state itself which relies on violence of various forms (physical or not) to maintain itself)

3) Whilst pacifism might not recognize the legitimacy of the state's monopoly on violence explicitly, it's refusal to 'play with a full deck' implicitly re-enforces this monopoly, whether on purpose or not.

4) Pacifism, at it's core, is implicitly (usually not intentially) elitist. As stated by Killing King Abacus:



It follows from this that only one who, living on the periphery of these communicating vessels, mocks the hopeless cornerstone of vain democratic chattering with blows is candidate to suffer brute force.


Pacifism is a luxery reserved for those with access to other communicating vessels (civil disobidience, protest marches, hunger striking,etc) which are not available to those elements of society on the receiving end of state violence (strikers being assaulted by the police during strike-breaking, tenants forced out of their homes, indigenous people forced of their land,etc). The very essence of the state is violence and the refusal to answer with the same fire is not only a tactical mistake, it is an ideological one as well.

This does not mean violence is a solve-all (it usually is not) but the pacifist refusal to use violence in EVERY scenario is unintentionally counter-revolutionary.

[COMPLEXproductions]

I think vandalism is good if you're smart about it. Don't destroy something if the message you're trying to send out isn't worth the tax payer's money. Blowing up a cop car in a protest: okay in my book unless it destroys the purpose of the protest. Breaking mc donald's windows: okay. Breaking into a local business: not good. And also keep in mind how the media will twist your action and how the general public will react. Spray paint big corporation walls, not homes. Make sure the message is worth it.

[AK]

Why did you necro this thread...

[Fietsketting]

Why did you necro this thread...
Well, it was a fun one afterall...

Being called a black clad, Balaclava wearing, criminal rocks my boat :D

[Wanted Man]

The thread actually became pretty good after a while. That was quite surprising, because it really looked like going to shit initially. But the exchange between bcbm, jammoe and Ravachol and others went pretty well. Plenty of food for thought here.

[777]

When you are under opression, violence may come as a natural reaction against it. Simply as that. Working class don't need to behave nice towards their oppressors anyway.

Just this, is there anything else which needs to be said?

Besides, why should people not attack the police? They are the ones that bully us and boss us about!

Why shouldn't people smash up banks and such? We don't want banks keeping us in wage slavery!

How can you say political "violence" gives a bad impression? How does showing the people that they can stand up to the system give a bad impression? It is only a bad thing to those who WANT to be oppressed.