Why is the anarchist mvoement stuck discussing the topic of black bloc or white?

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

Today the decentralized anarchist movement of the globe has distinct movements drawn by the established media forcing it into violent or non-violent sides, and I wonder if this is because of an underhanded campaign by capitalists who seek to remain in power.

Is it just me or do we need to take charge of the question of socialism and the discussion of anarchism and look to answer other questions besides the legitimacy of violent action?

Because sometimes I think violent things, but hope that my efforts are better spent in community construction. Am I wrong to think that assisting the eventual reform of society into libertarian socialism with co-operative action rather than destructive agitation is the way?

tl;dr: Yes

[Vendetta]

and I wonder if this is because of an underhanded campaign by capitalists who seek to remain in power.

Yeah, they're called agent provocateurs.

[Property Is Robbery]

Am I wrong to think that assisting the eventual reform of society into libertarian socialism with co-operative action rather than destructive agitation is the way?



Don't even question yourself, you're obviously correct.

[WeAreReborn]

Is it just me or do we need to take charge of the question of socialism and the discussion of anarchism and look to answer other questions besides the legitimacy of violent action?

Because sometimes I think violent things, but hope that my efforts are better spent in community construction. Am I wrong to think that assisting the eventual reform of society into libertarian socialism with co-operative action rather than destructive agitation is the way?

Well it really depends. If you evaluate your current situation and you feel the only way to make some change, no matter how small, is through destruction then do so. If you feel creative is much more helpful and easier then do so. It really should be based upon the situation at hand. That is why no Anarchist thinker lays out the exact plan because we realize that situations dictate everything.

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

Yeah, they're called agent provocateurs.

:p Yeah I've heard of those but why do we let them in?


Don't even question yourself, you're obviously correct.

So you're a white-bloc Mr Pothead Vegetarian? ^_^ I used to be a veg too, and still a pothead.


Well it really depends. If you evaluate your current situation and you feel the only way to make some change, no matter how small, is through destruction then do so. If you feel creative is much more helpful and easier then do so. It really should be based upon the situation at hand. That is why no Anarchist thinker lays out the exact plan because we realize that situations dictate everything.

So you're saying sometimes it's alright to smash things, if only because building things to reach the same goal is impractical.

[Quail]

It really does depend on the situation. Violence can be an appropriate tactic sometimes, as can non-violence.

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

It really does depend on the situation. Violence can be an appropriate tactic sometimes, as can non-violence.

But is the Bourgeoisie Media directing anarchist discussion towards a topic we've already covered in order to keep us disorganized and if so how can we get back on track?

[Ele'ill]

Today the decentralized anarchist movement of the globe has distinct movements drawn by the established media forcing it into violent or non-violent sides, and I wonder if this is because of an underhanded campaign by capitalists who seek to remain in power.

Is it just me or do we need to take charge of the question of socialism and the discussion of anarchism and look to answer other questions besides the legitimacy of violent action?

Because sometimes I think violent things, but hope that my efforts are better spent in community construction. Am I wrong to think that assisting the eventual reform of society into libertarian socialism with co-operative action rather than destructive agitation is the way?

tl;dr: Yes

(In regards to North America)

By supporting, understanding and using a diversity of tactics.

Many activists seem to think that diversity of tactics gives them the green light to be as violent as they want without criticism- and some think it gives them the right to fetishize peace actions.

The truth is we need more successful timing and execution of the tactics we have in our little bag of tools.

A failed action is a failed action. Why did it fail or why wasn't it successful?

To suggest that a broken window or a thousand broken windows indicates success is complete rubbish as much as blowing bubbles at police for six hours from the sidewalk.

I have seen it often- people are too wrapped up with image and feeling cool because they're a dissident when they're really not a dissident at all.




Property destruction in Toronto is a good example- could that energy have been put into engaging objects that don't have insurance policies? Yes. All of that energy went into photographs and videos- that's really all it was good for.

I've noticed a shift from previous demonstrations in the 90's- Now- there's a huge push towards property destruction and not a whole lot of planning worth a shit.

In the 90's you'd see people getting gassed and sprayed and beaten but they were trying to reclaim space (even if that meant engaging the police with rubberized inflatable shit or other more militant means). People would get to the fences and tear them down. Now nobody even bothers- they'd rather get some cool photos taken of them while they activate a billion dollar corporation's insurance policy.



At some of the recent police related social unrest all over the US- people went into the streets and engaged in property destruction against targets that have nothing to do with the police.

How about a lockdown or sitin in the fucking police HQ- how about those buildings also related get occupied? Is it hard? Yes- fucking try.

[Fawkes]

Am I wrong to think that assisting the eventual reform of society into libertarian socialism with co-operative action rather than destructive agitation is the way?


I am not all-knowing, but I can say with a fair amount of confidence that capitalism is never going to be reformed into libertarian socialism. It has to come by means of a revolution, in other words, by the destruction of the existing system, not by means of reform, which is predicated upon working within the existing structure, which is for all intents and purposes impossible. Political revolutions are inherently violent, either through overt violent actions or the threat of those actions.

Those who rely entirely on the power of a brick through a Starbucks' window are no better than those who assume the fetal position when confronted by police. Whatever means are necessary given the particular situation should be enacted, but the notion that a revolution -- the only means by which a change, or eradication, in superstructure can occur -- can be enacted solely through peaceful actions with no threat of violence is an ill-founded one.

Also, it should be noted that co-operative action and destructive agitation are not mutually exclusive things. Destruction can be a creative process, destruction and creation are likewise not mutually exclusive. There is nothing contradictory about building a home in the morning and burning a police station in the evening

[Ele'ill]

I would like to see anarchists engage in peace actions that are affective. It would draw people into a state of 'agree' or 'disagree' rather than 'I hate you because you're in black, I can't see your face and I don't want to get within 100 braincells of your ideology.

Granted, a lot of the 'peace activists' probably are anarchists technically but it would be nice to see a bloc in black get free from the police and right when they respond just stage a 2500 strong 'die in'.

Besides, I don't like seeing people give up years of their life for a prison sentence for a window that was replaced 6 hours after they broke it- free of charge for the corporation but full of restitution.