Aren't some Anarchists riots actually Anti-Anarchist?

[The Man]

I mean, when we see Anarchists smash the windows to Starbucks and stuff, Isn't that just making it worse for the workers? Vandalization of Means of Production I see sometimes as well. I was just thinking that if they destroy the workplace of the workers, that completely goes against our whole movement. What do you think?

[NGNM85]

Most of the people who engage in this sort of behavior are the same dickheads that think listening to Crass and eating out of dumpsters is 'radical.' There's a couple jokers in every crowd.

[Ocean Seal]

You make a good point. The workers in that given starbucks will have to wait until it is repaired to work in it again. They won't be getting paid during that time as well so their sympathies will probably be eroded.
But at the same time I can see several advantages to the anarchist riots. Vandalization of the means of production also means less profit for the ruling class. It also means that the masses see that the system isn't as invulnerable as once thought, and it encourages other class conscious workers to take the same actions. That last part might seem a bit idealistic, because it can't be seen immediately; but, the revolution takes time. I don't think that trashing one place will immediately cause other class conscious individuals to take to action catalyzing the revolution, but I do believe that over the years these actions will lead more and more people to question: Why? And when the question why is asked, we have planted the seeds of anti-capitalism.

Why does the left take these actions? Because they claim that capitalism is flawed?
I can get laid off at any time, I am a tool for profit, I don't have control over my labor... I now understand...
I could see this as the way to change the consciousness from loving the boss to loving one's class comrades.

I guess that's all I have to contribute. I would think that there is a trade-off to these actions, and I would have to look further into it.

[Paulappaul]

Basic Class struggle is the destruction of the means of production. Ever heard of Sabotage? I don't see how it goes against the whole movement. When windows are smashed, the workers aren't hurt. The company has funds for those kind of things. And if they do take it out of workers' wages, that's when they come to understand the antagonistic character between them and their bosses.

Furthermore, it's propaganda by deed. Targeting Starbucks and Banks shows people what you stand for, rather then tell them through a program.

I don't think it's good by itself. Anarchist "riots" should and usually are backed up by fliers and alternative media so people understand it. Plus, I think alternative culture work in forms like Food not Bombs, is good because it shows the contrast between Banks and Starbucks which fuck you over and Anarchists who help you out.

[Euronymous]

Anarchist riots are pretty prevalent here in seattle and in my opinion it's not the least bit effective to draw people to our cause. Anti-police riots are one thing, but there are much more pressing matters than just staying exclusive to anti-police demos.

That and anarchists I've met here deny they are even communist.

[Sixiang]

I mean, when we see Anarchists smash the windows to Starbucks and stuff, Isn't that just making it worse for the workers? Vandalization of Means of Production I see sometimes as well. I was just thinking that if they destroy the workplace of the workers, that completely goes against our whole movement. What do you think?

I think that in most situations it is just a way to piss off the capitalists more and probably leads to further anti-leftist sentiment. The media basically says, "Look at these terrorists setting cars on fire. You don't want your car set on fire. So therefore these guys are bad and you shouldn't like them."

However, if a riot is well organized beforehand and its intentions and points are made known that it is anti-capitalist, then perhaps it could do something good. I'm not an anarchist and I don't really follow these riots or actions very closely, so I'm not the best source by any means.

[DuracellBunny97]

In a way, most "anarchist' riots are anti-anarchist. I really wonder if most of the people taking part in those riots are truly anarchists, are just some pissed of people with an anti-authoritarian streak. They can riot all they want, but how is anarchy going to move anywhere with these people just opening the way for people to attack the ideas of anarchism as violent and destructive. If any of them truly are anarchists then good, but random acts of violence are not getting the movement very far in my opinion.

[Paulappaul]

Anarchist riots are pretty prevalent here in seattle and in my opinion it's not the least bit effective to draw people to our cause. Anti-police riots are one thing, but there are much more pressing matters than just staying exclusive to anti-police demos.

I've heard the opposite. Seattle Comrades have told me that the people at the anti - cop demo have more then multiplied.

[bcbm]

Most of the people who engage in this sort of behavior are the same dickheads that think listening to Crass and eating out of dumpsters is 'radical.' There's a couple jokers in every crowd.

how are things back in 1998?


I mean, when we see Anarchists smash the windows to Starbucks and stuff, Isn't that just making it worse for the workers? Vandalization of Means of Production I see sometimes as well. I was just thinking that if they destroy the workplace of the workers, that completely goes against our whole movement. What do you think?
We have always lived in slums and holes in the wall. We will know how to accommodate ourselves for a while. For, you must not forget, we also know how to build. It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities, here in Spain and in America, and everywhere.

We, the workers, can build others to take their place, and better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins.

[Tjis]

There is no such thing as anarchist riots, as riots have no coherent ideology. They are spontaneous events in which many people participate for many reasons, or for no reason at all. Having a firm grasp of anarchist ideology is certainly not a requirement for smashing windows.

[PhoenixAsh]

I have nothing against sabotage and destroying the workplace as part of a politically motivated protest....both in personal motivation for the act as public motivation given. Without a motivation the act is senseless and lacks an explanation for others to put it into context.

But smashing cars, smashing windows...well...those are hardly means of production. Thats just defeating the purpose and perceived as vandalism and chaotic behaviour confirming the existing prejudices.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

obvious troll post is obvious.

[Quail]

In a way, most "anarchist' riots are anti-anarchist. I really wonder if most of the people taking part in those riots are truly anarchists, are just some pissed of people with an anti-authoritarian streak. They can riot all they want, but how is anarchy going to move anywhere with these people just opening the way for people to attack the ideas of anarchism as violent and destructive. If any of them truly are anarchists then good, but random acts of violence are not getting the movement very far in my opinion.
Property destruction is not violence. Windows don't get hurt when you smash them.

Provided that these actions are accompanied by information on why people are doing them, I don't see them as harmful to the movement. If a shop gets shut down for the day, the capitalist loses a day of profit. On its own, that may not seem significant, but it does put pressure on that company and it does show that people are angry. (As I'm writing this, I'm thinking about the recent UK Uncut actions against companies that have dodged taxes.)

The media is never going to report on the event favourably, but that's the purpose of the literature. If the action causes people to stop and think, "Why are they so angry?" and look into it, then it has served a purpose.

[Black Sheep]

Most forms of demonstrations are harmful in one way or another.
A riot closes off a street, and a worker going to his/her job has to suffer a long time of detour and traffic jam.
A strike prevents a worker (who may not have been supportive of it) to earn a day's wage.

etc

I'mnot saying that symbolic destruction of property is always an approved mean of class struggle, nor equal to the above, but i think you get my point.

[PhoenixAsh]

The media is never going to report on the event favourably, but that's the purpose of the literature. If the action causes people to stop and think, "Why are they so angry?" and look into it, then it has served a purpose.

I think you put your finger on the sore spot there....I think people have long ago stopped to think for themselves and believe what is force fed by the media. I think a lot of people have stopped to see themselves as part of a society but think of themselves as induviduals in their personal worlds.

[#FF0000]

I would have loved it if someone smashed out the windows of the fast food places I worked at. I'd get to sweep up this glass instead of having to do actual work and might get out early cause, you know, no windows.

[RED DAVE]

You make a good point. The workers in that given starbucks will have to wait until it is repaired to work in it again. They won't be getting paid during that time as well so their sympathies will probably be eroded.Right.


But at the same time I can see several advantages to the anarchist riots.Really?


Vandalization of the means of production also means less profit for the ruling class.You are incredibly naive if you think that a few smashed windows matter at all.


It also means that the masses see that the system isn't as invulnerable as once thought, and it encourages other class conscious workers to take the same actions.That's what you want to happen. In fact, it is just as likely that for the reasons above, workers will turn against the perpetrators.


That last part might seem a bit idealistic, because it can't be seen immediately; but, the revolution takes time.And individual actions like these, uncoordinated, actually slow things down.


I don't think that trashing one place will immediately cause other class conscious individuals to take to action catalyzing the revolutionThen why do them if you're above the age of twelve?


but I do believe that over the years these actions will lead more and more people to question: Why? And when the question why is asked, we have planted the seeds of anti-capitalism.There is no reason to believe that random vandalization leads to radicalization of the working class.


Why does the left take these actions? Because they claim that capitalism is flawed?Or because that are young and undisciplined.


I can get laid off at any time, I am a tool for profit, I don't have control over my labor... I now understand...Not likely to happen seeing someone else burn a car.


I could see this as the way to change the consciousness from loving the boss to loving one's class comrades.You can only see it with special glasses. :D


I guess that's all I have to contribute. I would think that there is a trade-off to these actions, and I would have to look further into it.Do that. Read about the history of individual terrorism and how useless it is to the revolutionary movement.

RED DAVE

[Tim Finnegan]

Furthermore, it's propaganda by deed. Targeting Starbucks and Banks shows people what you stand for, rather then tell them through a program.
That assumes a clarity of communication, which I'm not sure is always present. When people smashed banks windows in London, that was an expression of popular discontent with the financial establishment and was lent, if not support, then at least a certain sympathy. But when people smash Starbucks windows, nobody knows what that means, and if they think it means anything, they assume it's some hipsterish protest against big retail chains.

If public violence is to be a legitimate tool of class struggle, then it must be an expression of class struggle as experience by the masses, and not merely an expression of individual conviction.

[Dunk]

If part of our rationale is that private property is arbitrary - forced upon the workers - and that it is the workers who already have the right to own and control the means of production, then I think damaging or destroying the means of production may be a generally incoherent idea.

Then again, there may be a time and a place that damaging or sabotaging the means of production is completely called for - for instance, if the boss fires everyone everyone on strike and calls scabs in.

Beyond waxing philosophic about the justifications of such actions, we should probably keep in mind that - and although I admittedly do not have scientific poll figures to back this up - these actions tend to repel workers and are easy prey for bourgeois propaganda.

[The Man]

Most of the people who engage in this sort of behavior are the same dickheads that think listening to Crass and eating out of dumpsters is 'radical.' There's a couple jokers in every crowd.

This is what I'm trying to get at. Plus, most of them don't even know Anarchists are actually Communists.

[Tim Finnegan]

If part of our rationale is that private property is arbitrary - forced upon the workers - and that it is the workers who already have the right to own and control the means of production, then I think damaging or destroying the means of production may be a generally incoherent idea.

Then again, there may be a time and a place that damaging or sabotaging the means of production is completely called for - for instance, if the boss fires everyone everyone on strike and calls scabs in.
A good point, but in that case destructive action must be undertaken by the relevant workers, as an expression of their right to dispose of the means of production as they see fit. Nobody in the Starbucks is consulted before the cinder block is sent through the window.

[daleckian]

Basic Class struggle is the destruction of the means of production. Ever heard of Sabotage? I don't see how it goes against the whole movement. When windows are smashed, the workers aren't hurt. The company has funds for those kind of things. And if they do take it out of workers' wages, that's when they come to understand the antagonistic character between them and their bosses.


Leaving them unemployed or underpaid while they have a family to support will just FILL them with sympathy for the anarchist movement! :rolleyes:

And people wonder why anarchists have such a bad name...they make it for themselves, with their "PUNK ROCKKKKK" attitude that just drives people away.

[Paulappaul]

But when people smash Starbucks windows, nobody knows what that means, and if they think it means anything, they assume it's some hipsterish protest against big retail chains.

No I defiantly agree with you. That's why I said, propaganda much ensue by means of alternative media.


Leaving them unemployed or underpaid while they have a family to support will just FILL them with sympathy for the anarchist movement!

Yeah it defiantly does. When your boss is screwing you over for things you couldn't prevent to protect THEIR OWN MONEY, consciousness is defiantly raised. These are the sort things workplaces organize around and most predominantly in guess what? The Anarchist Industrial Workers' of the World, because of its heavy tendency on Starbucks worker organizing.

[Tim Finnegan]

No I defiantly agree with you. That's why I said, propaganda much ensue by means of alternative media.
I would argue that propaganda must precede action, and that action must be an expression of the popular sentiment generated by such propaganda. One cannot expect the masses to listen to your argument when they've already become convinced that you're nothing more than an anti-social hoodlum.


Yeah it defiantly does. When your boss is screwing you over for things you couldn't prevent to protect THEIR OWN MONEY, consciousness is defiantly raised.How do you know that will be the result? Most workers are deeply embedded in bourgeois ideology, and will not see this as increased exploitation, but, rather, the owner engaging in book-balancing, as is his right in a system of private property. When profit is seen as the fair cut of the capitalist, then workers will ask no more than proportionality of wage decreases to (publicly admitted) profit loss.

[Paulappaul]

I would argue that propaganda must precede action, and that action must be an expression of the popular sentiment generated by such propaganda. One cannot expect the masses to listen to your argument when they've already become convinced that you're nothing more than an anti-social hoodlum.Last year I was in an anti police brutality protest. We started out with about 70 people, most of them black blockers, a disappointing turn out. We ended with near 400 taking about up about 4 city blocks. From our beginning turn out we leafleted and walked up to individuals and told them why we were here, why they should join us, etc. We engaged the police in a few occasions, we didn't lose any numbers, they only rose.

They weren't convinced we were anti - social losers. Those kind of people don't get out and they don't walk up to random people. Propaganda rarely creates sentiment, if ever. Action creates sentiment. Action by your oppressors against you. What awoke the Greek Protests and what awoke the protests in my area was the killing of an unarmed teenager.


How do you know that will be the result? Most workers are deeply embedded in bourgeois ideology, and will not see this as increased exploitation, but, rather, the owner engaging in book-balancing, as is his right in a system of private property. When profit is seen as the fair cut of the capitalist, then workers will ask no more than proportionality of wage decreases to (publicly admitted) profit loss.

Not when they themselves are being affected. Whenever there is increased exploitation of such a high degree in an industry where workers already get paid like crap, there is backlashes.

[Tim Finnegan]

Last year I was in an anti police brutality protest. We started out with about 70 people, most of them black blockers, a disappointing turn out. We ended with near 400 taking about up about 4 city blocks. From our beginning turn out we leafleted and walked up to individuals and told them why we were here, why they should join us, etc. We engaged the police in a few occasions, we didn't lose any numbers, they only rose.

They weren't convinced we were anti - social losers. Those kind of people don't get out and they don't walk up to random people. Propaganda rarely creates sentiment, if ever. Action creates sentiment. Action by your oppressors against you. What awoke the Greek Protests and what awoke the protests in my area was the killing of an unarmed teenager.
What does this have to do with public violence?


Not when they themselves are being affected. Whenever there is increased exploitation of such a high degree in an industry where workers already get paid like crap, there is backlashes.Not necessarily ones that contribute to class struggle, though.

[Paulappaul]

What does this have to do with public violence?

Public Violence, both by the Police and by the Protesters their. We engaged the Police and (I forgot to mention) their offices were smashed.

[bcbm]

And people wonder why anarchists have such a bad name...they make it for themselves, with their "PUNK ROCKKKKK" attitude that just drives people away.


yes that must be it, if only they would hire a better pr firm

[Tjis]

As long as there isn't a more productive way to channel dissatisfaction, riots are going to happen. In a riot, people can enjoy the feeling of collective power just once, something which is thoroughly lacking in most of our daily experience. To denounce riots is to ignore the reason why they exist: powerlessness.

If you don't want riots to happen, organize a working class movement that is able to make a positive impact on people's lives, and change these conditions of powerlessness.

[Enragé]

smashing windows etc can be seen as direct attacks on the 'stuff' of alienation, as what is produced by the workers under alienated conditions, or in other words 'dead labour'.

it is a logical consequence of an alienated world, not a viable tactic. It is basicly an outgrowth of the frustration which is caused by not being able to influence the world around us. As such these things can be personally gratifying for workers.

This is why i would not condemn it in any case. But we need to realise, and make clear to others, that it is just that: the taking out of frustration on the 'stuff' of alienation. It should never be a central tactic for those trying to create a different world, although there is something to be said for participation in it in order to stay in touch with those elements in the working class which take to these methods. In any case, there is nothing 'morally' wrong with smashing bank windows etc.

Not to mention, it does generate alot of media attention. Ofcourse, this media attention is unlikely to be positive, and you often see certain parts of the revolutionary left pissed off at those engaging in riots as 'taking away the attention from the peaceful protest'. The question needs to be asked however that if the protest in question would have been totally peaceful, to what extent the media would have picked up on it at all. Walking around in a circle, shouting a few slogans, often is very boring for the participants and definitely even more so for the media.

edit: oh, and also what tjis said above! and what paulappaul says illustrates it.

[jbaez]

Sabotage is a means of engaging in the struggle against capitalism, although relevant as a tactic only to a certain extent. There arise situations when smashing windows and targeting certain entities are appropriate and in fact sometimes even necessary, but I believe that certain situations arise when other forms of engagement are much more appropriate.

However, I also believe that coordinated, planned action over time, in the form of sabotage/destruction can be a practical tactic as well, especially when it involves the working class as a whole.

[griffjam]

Have you ever held a McJob? All you do all day is fantasize about smashing the place up. Every alienated worker knows exactly what they would do to their workplace with some petrol and a clean getaway.

[NGNM85]

Plus, most of them don't even know Anarchists are actually Communists.

Most Anarchists (At least.) are not Communists. All Anarchists are Socialists.

[Summerspeaker]

I don't know about smashing Starbucks windows, but I'd sure like to see some material interference with the U.S. war machine. The rally here on March 19 felt pathetic. Military systems permeate this city, yet we just obediently march to the plaza, give a few speeches, and leave. Blocking a gate to one of the bases or destroying Lockheed Martin property would have made a better spectacle as well as a real impact.

[jbaez]

Have you ever held a McJob? All you do all day is fantasize about smashing the place up. Every alienated worker knows exactly what they would do to their workplace with some petrol and a clean getaway.

I've never worked a McJob, but have worked in the restaurant industry in jobs very similar to one, and could tell you that I have felt the same. If somehow, collectively, me and my co-workers could have come to an agreement to perform a destructive act that in turns prevented production and put a halt to the consequences of that specific entity's operation on us directly, I would have. And that action in my opinion, although specific and individual to it's time and place, would have been a legitimate and productive in the revolutionary sense, as a form of revolt against capitalism.

[NGNM85]

...or destroying Lockheed Martin property would have made a better spectacle as well as a real impact.

Would this action have endeared the public to Anarchism, or alienated them? If you need a hint, just ask...

[bcbm]

are anarchists trying to run a media campaign or take sides in a global civil war?

[Summerspeaker]

Would this action have endeared the public to Anarchism, or alienated them? If you need a hint, just ask...

Which public? I think such direct action has the potential to inspire the countless folks who want to see concrete resistance. Consider what happened in San Francisco back in 2003 (http://www.akpress.org/2008/items/shutdownakpress). The mainstream media kept that quiet for a reason.

[NGNM85]

are we trying to run a media campaign or take sides in a global civil war? if you need a hint, just ask...

Any substantial social change will only (I want to stress the word only, here.) be made by a mass movement, not by a marginal cult, especially if said marginal cult antagonizes or alienates said said masses.

[Summerspeaker]

A surprising (or not!) number of folks find meetings alienating and assertive direct action inspiring. [Liability Protection: I'm not suggesting leftists shouldn't have meetings.]

[bcbm]

Any substantial social change will only (I want to stress the word only, here.) be made by a mass movement, not by a marginal cult, especially if said marginal cult antagonizes or alienates said said masses.

i disagree with almost everything in this sentence, but just for argument's sake: the most successful anarchist space in the world has been built by a number of tactics but a prominent one among them has been asserting itself as outside of and against mainstream politics through violence- both against property and against the police. there are certainly criticisms to be directed against the anarchist "movement," especially in the north american context, but i don't think hand wringing over riots and property destruction because it damages the otherwise pristine reputation of anarchists is among them. i mean even in the north american context we seriously wouldn't have much of an anarchist movement to talk about without the riots at the wto, quebec, etc. even if you want anarchists to get "good press," the "rioters" have been good at that- in texas recently a bunch of anarchists have been featured in the media talking about what anarchy means, how it isn't associated with violence, what it wants to accomplish, what they are doing... and they got all of this coverage because anarchists are accused of burning down the governors mansion several years ago.

[Tim Finnegan]

i disagree with almost everything in this sentence, but just for argument's sake: the most successful anarchist space in the world has been built by a number of tactics but a prominent one among them has been asserting itself as outside of and against mainstream politics through violence- both against property and against the police.
Which space is this? There's a fundamental difference, I would suggest, between something like Anarchist Catalonia and something like Freetown Christiana, so simply being an "anarchist space" does not in itself mean all that much.

[bcbm]

greece

[Tim Finnegan]

That Greece has a strong anarchist/autonomist movement does not make it an "anarchist space".

[bcbm]

as i understand it: in greece they call it the "anarchist space" as opposed to the "anarchist movement," because this space incorporates a wide range of philosophies, ideas and tactics that do not necessarily all agree as much as most "movements" require, but nonetheless cooperate when possible

[Agnapostate]

Most anarchist riots and black bloc activities are anti-anarchist in that they give rise to the popular misconception that anarchism is simply an adolescent preference for senseless chaos and destruction that is rooted in a punk subculture, rather than any kind of coherent philosophy with a strong basis in Enlightenment ideals. The Leninist movement in the U.S. has seemed to avoid this entirely, and has a strong and diverse membership base, from what I've seen.

[bcbm]

Most anarchist riots and black bloc activities are anti-anarchist in that they give rise to the popular misconception that anarchism is simply an adolescent preference for senseless chaos and destruction that is rooted in a punk subculture, rather than any kind of coherent philosophy with a strong basis in Enlightenment ideals.

i don't think a lot of anarchists today view their ideas as having a strong basis in enlightenment in ideals. i think they may have ideas that understand our current situation better than a lot of other "leftist" groups.


The Leninist movement in the U.S. has seemed to avoid this entirely, and has a strong and diverse membership base, from what I've seen.

i don't think their "membership base" (not sure this is the best term) is significantly different than anarchists

[black magick hustla]

greece
i think greece is a bad example. i think greek anarchist are voluntaristic. well ok i guess some of them are sick bank robbers and probably have more exciting lives than those who work walmart shitjobs but it seems to me its still just some weirdo subculture. i don't think tactics like that are going to bring communism and although i like to write and read about bankrobberies i just want to be left alone with my fucking weed and beer.

[bcbm]

i think greece is a bad example. i think greek anarchist are voluntaristic. well ok i guess some of them are sick bank robbers and probably have more exciting lives than those who work walmart shitjobs but it seems to me its still just some weirdo subculture. i don't think tactics like that are going to bring communism and although i like to write and read about bankrobberies i just want to be left alone with my fucking weed and beer.

i'm not saying i think greek anarchists are especially effective or need to be replicated as a successful model, simply saying that if you want to present this image of "building a successful mass movement" its worth looking at the circumstances under which the closest thing to this has been built and for anarchists i think right now this is greece. i don't think they'll bring communism but i think they have a more honest relationship with capitalist society and this may explain their "success" as a subgroup within that.

[black magick hustla]

i'm not saying i think greek anarchists are especially effective or need to be replicated as a successful model, simply saying that if you want to present this image of "building a successful mass movement" its worth looking at the circumstances under which the closest thing to this has been built and for anarchists i think right now this is greece. i don't think they'll bring communism but i think they have a more honest relationship with capitalist society and this may explain their "success" as a subgroup within that.

i don't think greece has the most massive anarchist population. i would imagine that is spain, where still the history of the CNT is real and still there are living militants to tell its tales. the CGT, which was the reformist split and the biggest one, retains the name of anarchism and its a 60k strong union. i imagine not everybody in the CGT is an anarchist but my point is that probably in spain there are more people who call themselves anarchists. of course, spanish anarchists arent as interesting at greek ones but i feel they are the closest to "non-weirdo" anarchism you are going to find in the real world.

besides, i think a lot of the aspects of greek anarchism seem to me very related to criminality. i am not gonna diss on criminals in the same way capitalists do but i dont think people who rob banks and form their own insular communities by doing so have anything to offer to me.

[bcbm]

i don't think greece has the most massive anarchist population. i would imagine that is spain, where still the history of the CNT is real and still there are living militants to tell its tales. the CGT, which was the reformist split and the biggest one, retains the name of anarchism and its a 60k strong union. i imagine not everybody in the CGT is an anarchist but my point is that probably in spain there are more people who call themselves anarchists. of course, spanish anarchists arent as interesting at greek ones but i feel they are the closest to "non-weirdo" anarchism you are going to find in the real world.

could be. i don't really know enough about either to say. i'd maybe hazard that both strategies have merits and work in some circumstances? but also might not have much to offer for actually reaching their goals.


besides, i think a lot of the aspects of greek anarchism seem to me very related to criminality. i am not gonna diss on criminals in the same way capitalists do but i dont think people who rob banks and form their own insular communities by doing so have anything to offer to me.

i think the criminality is perhaps overestimatedt, there are anarchist bank robbers but they're not a significant element of the space, which doesn't seem to have an especially insular character from what i know.

[Tim Finnegan]

i'm not saying i think greek anarchists are especially effective or need to be replicated as a successful model, simply saying that if you want to present this image of "building a successful mass movement" its worth looking at the circumstances under which the closest thing to this has been built and for anarchists i think right now this is greece. i don't think they'll bring communism but i think they have a more honest relationship with capitalist society and this may explain their "success" as a subgroup within that.
But Greek anarchism isn't a mass movement, it's a fringe movement that is occasionally able to pull an additional part of the population behind it. It may have gained some popular sympathy in the last few years, but it exists and operates without the support or involvement of a substantial part of the working class, let alone the majority.

[Summerspeaker]

of course, spanish anarchists arent as interesting at greek ones but i feel they are the closest to "non-weirdo" anarchism you are going to find in the real world.

I think weirdo anarchism is going to be my new tendency. That captures my lifestyle and political perspective almost perfectly.

[Wanted Man]

I don't think it's good by itself. Anarchist "riots" should and usually are backed up by fliers and alternative media so people understand it. Plus, I think alternative culture work in forms like Food not Bombs, is good because it shows the contrast between Banks and Starbucks which fuck you over and Anarchists who help you out.

Who reads flyers?

[Agnapostate]

i don't think a lot of anarchists today view their ideas as having a strong basis in enlightenment in ideals. i think they may have ideas that understand our current situation better than a lot of other "leftist" groups.

This statement refers to the "ideas" of anarchists; the moral principles are derived from Enlightenment ideals relating to reason and liberty. The practical applications of those ideas or current organizational campaigns are distinct.


i don't think their "membership base" (not sure this is the best term) is significantly different than anarchists

There is no statistical data on the issue that I am aware of. Therefore, I must go by my own anecdotal observations and perceptions. At events, rallies, and protests, I usually find that Leninists (and the strongest force here is the PSL), are composed of a wide and diverse membership base, whereas anarchists, if they are even present, are usually young and into a punk or heavy metal subculture.

[Paulappaul]

Who reads flyers?

------> :thumbup1:
Proletarian Joe over there.

[StalinFanboy]

This statement refers to the "ideas" of anarchists; the moral principles are derived from Enlightenment ideals relating to reason and liberty. The practical applications of those ideas or current organizational campaigns are distinct.



There is no statistical data on the issue that I am aware of. Therefore, I must go by my own anecdotal observations and perceptions. At events, rallies, and protests, I usually find that Leninists (and the strongest force here is the PSL), are composed of a wide and diverse membership base, whereas anarchists, if they are even present, are usually young and into a punk or heavy metal subculture.

I don't know why people give such a shit about communists or anarchists being into a subculture. You are aware that regular working class people are also in subcultures right?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Rioting is one of the most consistent activities that anarchists use to open up a space to talk about actually attacking the state, breaking the law, etc. Sure, it won't create a "mass movement", but, y'know, honestly, nothing will, short of total crisis that renders capitalism non-functioning. In the meantime, we can either practice a minoritarian politics of doing what we'd like to see more people doing, and act as an example (and really, I'd love to see "mass" rioting), or we can practice a stale and useless activism in an pointless attempt to "movement build", as though other people are too stupid to organize themselves.

[Tim Finnegan]

Rioting is one of the most consistent activities that anarchists use to open up a space to talk about actually attacking the state, breaking the law, etc. Sure, it won't create a "mass movement", but, y'know, honestly, nothing will, short of total crisis that renders capitalism non-functioning.
That's awfully pessimistic. Why do you assume that the majority can only be engaged with- if at all- through smashing windows? What makes us, I wonder, so very special that we were able to get where we are, politically speaking, without it? :confused:

[black magick hustla]

Rioting is one of the most consistent activities that anarchists use to open up a space to talk about actually attacking the state, breaking the law, etc. Sure, it won't create a "mass movement", but, y'know, honestly, nothing will, short of total crisis that renders capitalism non-functioning. In the meantime, we can either practice a minoritarian politics of doing what we'd like to see more people doing, and act as an example (and really, I'd love to see "mass" rioting), or we can practice a stale and useless activism in an pointless attempt to "movement build", as though other people are too stupid to organize themselves.
anarchist rioting is most of the time stale and boring

[Agnapostate]

I don't know why people give such a shit about communists or anarchists being into a subculture. You are aware that regular working class people are also in subcultures right?

I am aware that regular working-class people are into subcultures, as you said, implying a degree of separation between their political and unrelated social lives. Personally, I'm into the hip-hop/rap subculture and would seek to promote anarchism along those lines. However, it is problematic for a political movement to be almost exclusively associated with one particular subculture, as modern anarchism in the U.S. seems to be. So, a better future approach involves reaching out to people who might not listen to the Dead Kennedys and Black Flag.

[bcbm]

But Greek anarchism isn't a mass movement, it's a fringe movement that is occasionally able to pull an additional part of the population behind it. It may have gained some popular sympathy in the last few years, but it exists and operates without the support or involvement of a substantial part of the working class, let alone the majority.

i didn't say it was a mass movement, i said it was closer to being a mass movement than say, north american anarchy and that maybe it is worth looking at what makes the anarchist space in greece successful if your goal is to expand that space in other places? of course i'd say its a waste of time, there are anarchists trying all kinds of methods and they all seem to accomplish more or less the same result...


At events, rallies, and protests, I usually find that Leninists (and the strongest force here is the PSL), are composed of a wide and diverse membership base, whereas anarchists, if they are even present, are usually young and into a punk or heavy metal subculture.

maybe it has something to do with who is more likely to show up to activist events? or maybe you don't notice the other anarchists precisely because they don't fit the stereotype? i'll admit in some areas there are lots of punk/metal anarchists but this has changed a lot even in the past five years. most of the anarchists i know aren't punk/metal and older anarchists also usually aren't very "subcultural." not that being part of whatever subculture or not really matters.

[Summerspeaker]

What makes us, I wonder, so very special that we were able to get where we are, politically speaking, without it?

Who are you referring to here? All the labor and radical movements I'm familiar with - mainly those in the Americas - have a colorful history of street violence. I have little fondness for riots myself, but even less for the timid and purely symbolic displays that I see from the existing community in U.S.

[Agnapostate]

maybe it has something to do with who is more likely to show up to activist events? or maybe you don't notice the other anarchists precisely because they don't fit the stereotype? i'll admit in some areas there are lots of punk/metal anarchists but this has changed a lot even in the past five years. most of the anarchists i know aren't punk/metal and older anarchists also usually aren't very "subcultural." not that being part of whatever subculture or not really matters.

They are either not there, or like me, physically there but not in an organized anarchist presence. These are my anecdotal observations and perceptions of the local activist scene here, which I've been absent from for the past few months because of my schedule. But the PSL usually leads small rallies, and has a visible presence. Anarchists have visible presences at larger rallies, but usually in black bloc gear (which I myself own but refuse to wear in the heat), and sometimes with a metal band.

[Tim Finnegan]

Who are you referring to here? All the labor and radical movements I'm familiar with - mainly those in the Americas - have a colorful history of street violence. I have little fondness for riots myself, but even less for the timid and purely symbolic displays that I see from the existing community in U.S.
I meant that most of us on the revolutionary left weren't exposed to anti-capitalist thought because we happened to witness a Black Blocer brawling with the cops, but through altogether more peaceful means. Why, then, is it assumed that public violence is the only way to turn the majority around? What makes us so clever that we can learn something from a SWP pamphlet (say), but everybody else needs to see anarchists throw bottles?

Certainly, I think that public confrontations with authority can be useful, but they need to be an expression of a mass movement if it's going to achieve very much, and such confrontations do not necessarily need to end in violence. We need tactics appropriate to circumstances, and trying to side-step that by advocating violence for the sheer sake of spectacle isn't going to suffice.


i didn't say it was a mass movement, i said it was closer to being a mass movement than say, north american anarchy and that maybe it is worth looking at what makes the anarchist space in greece successful if your goal is to expand that space in other places?
I'd say that there's something to be learned from it, yes, but I don't think it serves as a guide to creating anything other than a prominent fringe- valuable in itself, certainly, but not the end goal.

[Summerspeaker]

Anarchists and PSL folks are indistinguishable in my experience - except for the uniforms each group sometimes wears at rallies, of course. Though I do tend to lump together sympathizers and kindred spirits with folks who explicitly identify as anarchist in my mind.


I meant that most of us on the revolutionary left weren't exposed to anti-capitalist thought because we happened to witness a Black Blocer brawling with the cops, but through altogether more peaceful means. Why, then, is it assumed that public violence is the only way to turn the majority around? What makes us so clever that we can learn something from a SWP pamphlet (say), but everybody else needs to see anarchists throw bottles?

I'm not advocating the stereotypical black bloc brawl, nor did my interest in radical politics come from anything of the sort. Possibilities exist between indiscriminate riots and passive public displays. That's what I want to see more of. And I don't want to wait for this mythical mass movement to emerge.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

anarchist rioting is most of the time stale and boring

Only from the armchair.
To borrow from a subcultural icon (one who's not an anarchist, and whose politics I don't identify with, coincidentally), it's "the unbeatable high".


However, it is problematic for a political movement to be almost exclusively associated with one particular subculture, as modern anarchism in the U.S. seems to be.

I think bcbm's post applies to this as well. If you approach anarchists with the assumption that they are exclusively white/male/punks/whatever, of course that's what you're going to find. The reality is that most anarchists don't look like anarchists - they look like skids, or workers, or anything at all. Nobody suspects the five-foot-nothing Chinese grad student girl to throw down with the black bloc, but . . . that's the beauty of masks, eh?


Why do you assume that the majority can only be engaged with- if at all- through smashing windows?

What did I say that implied exclusivity? I just mean that an honest minoritarian doing-what-we'd-like-to-see-done practice is bound to resonate more than boring-ass activist fighting-for-something-we-don't-want-because-we-don't-think-anybody-could-be-smart-enough-to-understand-our-politics. That practice is obviously not exclusive to rioting: I also mean gardens. :p

[Tim Finnegan]

To borrow from a subcultural icon (one who's not an anarchist, and whose politics I don't identify with, coincidentally), it's "the unbeatable high".
That seems to me a potential criticism of the tactic, rather than an endorsement. :confused:


What did I say that implied exclusivity? I just mean that an honest minoritarian doing-what-we'd-like-to-see-done practice is bound to resonate more than boring-ass activist fighting-for-something-we-don't-want-because-we-don't-think-anybody-could-be-smart-enough-to-understand-our-politics. That practice is obviously not exclusive to rioting: I also mean gardens. :pAh, I misunderstood. I interpreted you as suggesting that propaganda-of-the-deed was necessary in engaging the majority of the population, which I felt unfair, but if you're broadening that to include any radical projects, then I suppose that's more reasonable. Of course, little old syndicalist me prefers strikes and occupations to play the role of "doing what we'd like to see done", but there's certainly room for the lot of them. ;)


I'm not advocating the stereotypical black bloc brawl, nor did my interest in radical politics come from anything of the sort. Possibilities exist between indiscriminate riots and passive public displays. That's what I want to see more of.
Fair point. As I said, I seem to have misunderstood VMC's argument- I certainly think that confrontationalism can be a valid tactic, I'm just sceptical about resorting to aggressively violent tactics unless it is somehow rendered entirely necessary.

...That said, as much much as I'm *****ing about Black Blocers, I have a picture of a couple of Greek ones painting a copper a lovely new shade of being-on-fire pinned up on my wall, so I shouldn't get too deep into this above-it-all posturing. :laugh:


And I don't want to wait for this mythical mass movement to emerge."Wait"? Who said anything about waiting? I would've thought that, at this point, the formation of a mass movement is the very effort we're engaged in? :confused:

[Agnapostate]

I think bcbm's post applies to this as well. If you approach anarchists with the assumption that they are exclusively white/male/punks/whatever, of course that's what you're going to find. The reality is that most anarchists don't look like anarchists - they look like skids, or workers, or anything at all. Nobody suspects the five-foot-nothing Chinese grad student girl to throw down with the black bloc, but . . . that's the beauty of masks, eh?

I've never seen a masked bloc in person, probably because the weather is too hot. I have seen punk/metal people, both male and female, and predominantly non-white (simply because those are the demographics here), who profess to be anarchists and occasionally perform at rallies. These are the only people I have seen at events that are part of an organized anarchist presence. Ideally, I would see people of all backgrounds dressed in a wide variety of "normal" clothing peacefully marching or demonstrating, and professing to be anarchists. That would make heads turn.

[Summerspeaker]

"Wait"? Who said anything about waiting? I would've thought that, at this point, the formation of a mass movement is the very effort we're engaged in?

I certainly so hope, though it rarely feels like it in my experience. So what exactly do you mean by criticizing block bloc tactics as fringe rather than mass? I don't understand the distinction under this definition.

[Tim Finnegan]

I certainly so hope, though it rarely feels like it in my experience. So what exactly do you mean by criticizing block bloc tactics as fringe rather than mass? I don't understand the distinction under this definition.
Black Bloc tactics, although they can be entirely valid and productive, are the product of a radical minority, and so cannot be said to truly represent anything beyond that minority (which is not a condemnation, you understand, just an observation). In comparison, the similarly confrontational tactics which as you say were very common in the early days of the labour movement represented, even when conducted by minorities, a popular movement against capitalism (or at least the contemporary incarnation of it), and even if not necessarily meeting with the universal approval of the working class, were not likely to meet with hostility or cause alienation.

The example I find myself going back to is the smashing of bank windows in London, during the G20 protests. Despite the bluster of the media, there was a lot of sympathy from the working class- albeit often couched in a sort of dark irony, that ever so useful British method of saying things which you know aren't allowed- as many saw it as the expression of a popular discontent with the financial establishment.

[black magick hustla]

Only from the armchair.
To borrow from a subcultural icon (one who's not an anarchist, and whose politics I don't identify with, coincidentally), it's "the unbeatable high".

whatever man i have better hobbies

[Ele'ill]

I mean, when we see Anarchists smash the windows to Starbucks and stuff, Isn't that just making it worse for the workers? Vandalization of Means of Production I see sometimes as well. I was just thinking that if they destroy the workplace of the workers, that completely goes against our whole movement. What do you think?

I don't believe it hurts workers in the ways you're describing. I believe it works as a spell breaker and as a sudden visual manifestation of the real world- demonstrating that back in reality things are not alright. It forces dialogue (positive and negative) into a public arena where as before people 'might have heard that the banks angered a lot of people go about my daily routine anyway' juxtaposed with 'Hey man I just watched fifteen people completely fuck up a bank while I was on my lunch break'.

[StalinFanboy]

I am aware that regular working-class people are into subcultures, as you said, implying a degree of separation between their political and unrelated social lives. Personally, I'm into the hip-hop/rap subculture and would seek to promote anarchism along those lines. However, it is problematic for a political movement to be almost exclusively associated with one particular subculture, as modern anarchism in the U.S. seems to be. So, a better future approach involves reaching out to people who might not listen to the Dead Kennedys and Black Flag.

This assumes (wrongly) that pro-revolutionaries are the driving force behind revolution. And, really, you're about five or six years behind the times. Most anarchists I know and have met do not look punk. We all did back in the day, but that's different.

And the only time I hear people talking about anarchists having mohawks and being punk is on here to be honest.

[Summerspeaker]

I have limited experience with the stereotypical punk anarchists myself. I know more hippies, queer geeks, and serious-minded labor organizers. Many of us, of course, fit into multiple categories.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't believe it hurts workers in the ways you're describing. I believe it works as a spell breaker and as a sudden visual manifestation of the real world- demonstrating that back in reality things are not alright. It forces dialogue (positive and negative) into a public arena where as before people 'might have heard that the banks angered a lot of people go about my daily routine anyway' juxtaposed with 'Hey man I just watched fifteen people completely fuck up a bank while I was on my lunch break'.
That's true. I suppose the question is what you target- a bank may, as I suggest, gain popular sympathy, which would allow it to serve as the sort of wake-up call your suggest, but a Starbucks will probably just make us look like dicks.

[bcbm]

I meant that most of us on the revolutionary left weren't exposed to anti-capitalist thought because we happened to witness a Black Blocer brawling with the cops, but through altogether more peaceful means.

the first thing i remember about anarchists was seeing shit from seattle


Why, then, is it assumed that public violence is the only way to turn the majority around?

i don't think it can


What makes us so clever that we can learn something from a SWP pamphlet (say), but everybody else needs to see anarchists throw bottles?

i'd say its about equal.


We need tactics appropriate to circumstances, and trying to side-step that by advocating violence for the sheer sake of spectacle isn't going to suffice.

plenty of groups do what is "appropriate to circumstances" with basically the same results.


I'd say that there's something to be learned from it, yes, but I don't think it serves as a guide to creating anything other than a prominent fringe- valuable in itself, certainly, but not the end goal.

at this point anarchists/communists will only be prominent fringe movements at best.

[black magick hustla]

This assumes (wrongly) that pro-revolutionaries are the driving force behind revolution. And, really, you're about five or six years behind the times. Most anarchists I know and have met do not look punk. We all did back in the day, but that's different.

And the only time I hear people talking about anarchists having mohawks and being punk is on here to be honest.
i think activism is a subcultuire by itself though. i do think when politics become subcultural its a problem, and sometimes there is not much someone can do. sign of the weakness of that particular political force. i always try to be hella chill and accessible to anybody i meet tho

[La Comédie Noire]

Why does everybody give anarchists shit? They're totally harmless and insurance pays for any damage they may do. Most of them are green minded as well, so they don't leave behind litter either. Your average spring break tourist season brings more cities to their knees than most anarchists do in a decade.

[Dimmu]

I think that propaganda by deed is an important thing when it comes to anarchism movement. But this deeds have to be "understood" by the average Joe. This means that regular people need to understand why this protest or violence is taking place.

Like Paulappaul wrote, people need to be informed why a protest is taking place. Otherwise they will see this "rampage" as an unprovoked response and they will support the brutal measures that police will use.

[Paulappaul]

people need to be informed why a protest is taking place. Otherwise they will see this "rampage" as an unprovoked response and they will support the brutal measures that police will use.

Something big which alot of "Propaganda by Deed" folks forget. While the idea is great, if people don't understand it, it's pointless. This is where the practical need for an organisation always comes in. Workers rarely ever understand strikes and pickets other then they fuck up their daily routine. But you never see anybody complaining about how these are "anti - anarchist". The job of permanent organisation is to really educate on and analysis direct action, in the form of distributing leaflets and news to the community affected.

Propaganda by Deed has two colors too, which alot of people forget. I would argue, that what the Black Panther Party did in the form of free food, healthcare and security services was a form of Propaganda by Deed. Such services systematically produced deeds which in turn produced thoughts in the minds of those enjoying the services and the movement grew massively on this.

[human strike]

Not only is this type of vandalism (or simply forcing businesses to close), culture jamming in line with the theory of 'signals of disorder' (basically as is discussed above), but it is a proportionate response to the capitalists' class war against us, against workers. By shutting businesses down even just temporarily we destabilise capitalism which, rather than being a state of affairs to overthrow, is a process of constant reassertion. Disrupting that process of reassertion and fetishisation is liberation. I don't see it as going 'completely... against our whole movement', I see it as completely in line with our whole movement. We should be doing it as much as we possibly can.

See you at Oxford Street on Saturday. ;)

[Enragé]

I meant that most of us on the revolutionary left weren't exposed to anti-capitalist thought because we happened to witness a Black Blocer brawling with the cops, but through altogether more peaceful means. Why, then, is it assumed that public violence is the only way to turn the majority around? What makes us so clever that we can learn something from a SWP pamphlet (say), but everybody else needs to see anarchists throw bottles?


I was.

Though it probably did help that some dutch IST guy held a coherent talk and downplayed the violence in the same news documentary.

I think both things are complementary. Isolated, they appeal to different people, together they appeal to yet another 'sort' of people. In the end people should do whatever they're comfortable with/whatever they can sustain over a prolonged period of time.

what we need to figure out are various forms of practice for various people, drawing in new people yet at the same time not lose the old. This means that on the one hand we should not lose sight of trying to get into touch with new people and how our tactics relate to that, yet on the other hand we shouldnt lose sight of what kind of practice inspires those already in contact with/inside radical groups and how that relates to our tactics. Oh, and not forget that whatever tactic we employ our goal is the sam.

[Ele'ill]

Something big which alot of "Propaganda by Deed" folks forget. While the idea is great, if people don't understand it, it's pointless. This is where the practical need for an organisation always comes in. Workers rarely ever understand strikes and pickets other then they fuck up their daily routine. But you never see anybody complaining about how these are "anti - anarchist". The job of permanent organisation is to really educate on and analysis direct action, in the form of distributing leaflets and news to the community affected.

Propaganda by Deed has two colors too, which alot of people forget. I would argue, that what the Black Panther Party did in the form of free food, healthcare and security services was a form of Propaganda by Deed. Such services systematically produced deeds which in turn produced thoughts in the minds of those enjoying the services and the movement grew massively on this.


The last several lively ones here had people all over the place handing out leaflets, unmasked and talking with large numbers of people in their cars (who stopped to ask questions) and large numbers of people coming out of stores. It was nice to see.

[Ele'ill]

I'll tell you something I'd like to see more of- militant occupation of space.

[Tim Finnegan]

I'll tell you something I'd like to see more of- militant occupation of space.
I agree. That strikes a nice balance between economic violence and physical non-violence, allowing it to make both a non-ignorable impact while not running the same risk of alienating the general public. The recent student and (more temporary, but still impressive) bank occupations in the UK demonstrated that quite well, I think.

[The Grey Blur]

just reading through the thread...it's interesting how the arguments of insurrectionary anarchists mirror the debates in (northern) ireland between 'political' republicans (of which i'd consider myself one) and the militarist or "physical force" republicans. the latter and certain anarchists both seem to over-estimate symbolic violence as a political tool, or act. for the militarist republican shooting a british soldier is going to awaken the consciousness of the oppressed nationalist community, or failing that it will result in a repressive british counter-terrorist effort which will provoke a similar result. judging from some of the arguments here the logic of the anarchists is similar - the destruction of property isn't mindless, so much cod-psychology is attributed to the act that in their view it is not only justified but in one physical act shatters the hegemonic 'capitalist reality'...and of course if it provokes a heavy counter-demonstrator police effort then this only exposes the nature of the state, etc

i can accept that property destruction as a symbolic act probably is empowering or represents a frustrated symbolic act against capital/the state, and certainly in 90% of the cases (or in other words in the 'apolitical' riots by workers and poor people around the world, which are much more common than black bloc things around G8 or squats or whatever) it is very much a product of class tensions and the inequality which is a product of globalised capitalism...i just can't take seriously the cod philosophy surrounding its fetishization or employment as a deliberate tactic.

tl;dr:
property destruction (and i include in this personal property of workers too, like cars or whatever, which is what we saw in the bainlieue riots) is the product of a sort of alienated consciousness engendered by capitalism, and i'm not going to lecture those who engage in property damage while the state and capital relies on massive explicit and implicit inter-and-intra-national coercion just to continually maintain itself, but its fetishization as some sort of romantic gesture or whatever strikes me as very similar in language and metaphor to that used by romantic nationalists which i have experienced first-hand (and which i guarantee noone on this board would take seriously for a moment, whether in terms of politics or strategics). there is a relationship between ideas and materiality (and this wider consciousness of people, class/national/whatever) but it definitely isn't so linear (or romantic) as propagandists of the deed imagine, and in the end i'd always prioritise politics-as-politics over encoding-political-views-through-symbolic-physical acts...the former is explicit (easier to understand, harder to distort), the latter can be decoded a billion ways (as easily to justify police repression as to illuminate in the mind of an alienated worker/student the possibility of struggle). i know it's not an either/or situation, but the dodgy thinking which really swallows its own BS about propaganda-of-deed is rarely going to lend itself to very cogent political thinking outside of the subject.

edit, i think this is the best way of phrasing my criticism: it is possible to attribute to physical acts of 'violence' (i'm putting that in quotes because i don't really consider property damage violence) a political import (whether the idea of a conscious anti-capitalist act, or for nationalists an anti-imperialist act) which they simply don't inherently contain...it's what strikes me when i talk to serious irish socialist-republicans who still defend armed struggle as 'a revolutionary option' or part of a broader anti-imperialist effort, and who distinguish their efforts past and current from the more 'apolitical' or 'catholic defender-ist' approach of the provos (ie more apolitical nationalist irish armed organisation (which admittedly was a lot less targetted in its aggression...the socialist-republican paramilitaries might priorities a british statesperson while the provos were happy just to get a squaddie)) - the reality is that they were both essentially shooting 5.56 mm ammunition, and both exploding semtex, and both killing other human beings. it's not like their bullets were 'socialist' bullets, or that their bombs only killed avowed class enemies...in effect i'm just getting back to my original point - yes you can 'encode' violence with your own political beliefs, but only on the abstract level, on the tangible material level there's no difference between a vandal breaking a window or an anarchist, an it's on that abstract level, that level of communicating ideas where quite simply establishment views are hegemonic "the ruling ideas in every era are those of the ruling class", where regardless of how true or correct your justification for the violence, it can and will be whipped like a leaf in the wind by the forces of bourgeois morality and opinion-eering, through all the official and unofficial channels - of media, through cultural institutions (education, religious institutions), through the state - the message you encoded can be dissected and picked apart or at best regurgitated in a misinformed manner by the bourgeois.

the above could be taken as an argument against doing anything, ever, as the state can and will enforce a hegemonic control over the discourse, but the point i'm trying to emphasis is that at least with propagandising etc in the stereotypical political ways you can always retain control over your message, you aren't encoding it in a physical expression which in the end, even before you factor in the nature of ruling class ideological hegemony, can be interpreted in whatever way those who experience it desire, it's a political rorschach test. to sublimate your politics into a tangible physical outburst (whether shooting a police officer or breaking a bank's window) is dangerous. if, as part of the mass mood, people begin occupying property or attacking it (as we saw at the student protests in london before christmas) i'm certainly not going to object (and in fact it's very important to defend these acts as political (or class in the case of poverty, food, unemployment, 'apolitical/desperation' riots...and the two obviously overlap) expressions), but i don't see going out with this singular intent (property damage), regardless of the broader mood of demonstrators/protestors (and this is important, in the poll tax riots you had older people and children being attacked by police due to the actions of angry young men (who were politically justified of course but that's besides this specific point)) as a serious political tactic/strategy (though i guess a lot of the people who disagree would say they don't care much for 'serious politics', or demand to see the successes of 'serious politics', which is a fair enough criticism).

i still support direction action as a political tool though. i just think that these propaganda of the deed ideas some of which were put forward in this thread are...naive. and essentially idealist. oh, and quite macho too.

btw: the analogy between insurrectionary anarchists (or whatever you want to call them) and irish physical force nationalists wasn't just intended to be a lazy slander (it would be an equal slander on both groups tbh) but a genuine original observation.

[BankHeist]

I mean, when we see Anarchists smash the windows to Starbucks and stuff, Isn't that just making it worse for the workers? Vandalization of Means of Production I see sometimes as well. I was just thinking that if they destroy the workplace of the workers, that completely goes against our whole movement. What do you think?

Yes, as we all know, most Starbucks workers are completely liberated by the extremely comfortable environment of their minimum wage barista job, cuz y'know that is totally possible within the framework of capitalism. I mean, I worked at Starbucks and I would have been absolutely devastated if my favorite workplace was destroyed by a bunch of hoodlum anarchists. A broken window would have made my working conditions would have been absolutely dreadful! Instead of slaving all day making coffee and washing windows, I would have had to slave away sweeping up glass and rearranging furniture. It would have been such a drastic change!

Its just like when those communist parties sell their papers written by their volunteer writers! Don't they realize they're putting lowly paid corporate newspaper writers out of business. Those terrorists are throwing bricks through the windows of the newpaper companies with every paper they sell!

/sarcasm

Come on, are you people serious? You call yourselves revolutionaries, and will theorize endlessly about the "future" revolution, complain about the drudgery of capitalism, quote Marx on the miserable conditions of the worker, and yet you're really naive enough to think a brick through a window of a Starbucks will drastically hurt the workers? Get the fuck out of your university ivory towers, and learn a thing or two about corporate wage slavery. Quite honestly, anarchists could invade my workplace and shoot me in the arm, and it wouldn't really be a drastic change from the menial, repetitive tasks I'm expected to perform everyday.

[Agnapostate]

This assumes (wrongly) that pro-revolutionaries are the driving force behind revolution. And, really, you're about five or six years behind the times. Most anarchists I know and have met do not look punk. We all did back in the day, but that's different.

And the only time I hear people talking about anarchists having mohawks and being punk is on here to be honest.

As I said, I am reporting my anecdotal observations/perceptions. Unless you have statistical evidence that indicates that the majority of anarchist public activists "do not look punk," why not just say that most of the anarchists that you meet don't, while the case is the opposite for me? I hope we can work on the image here until we reach the stage that you have over there.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't think it's necessarily anti-anarchist to smash Starbucks, at the same time I don't see it as a very useful tactic. Obviously more effective action would be economic blockades on a mass scale, making a company pay for a broken window isn't effective and is not necessarily disrupting the economy.

Just because it's not helpful doesn't mean I think it is necessarily a bad thing, especially not because the media portray it that way. Let's face it, the media represents the interests of international capital, it will never side with a radical workers movement. If the media portray you in a positive light you're doing something wrong.

Also, although these actions don't have much purpose they are still legitimate expressions of class anger.