A plan behind vandalism?

[StoneFrog]

I was just wondering, for those groups who encourage or take part in vandalism, is there a plan behind it? I mean for what purpose does it help to give progress to the fight? Are there any groups that actually write about the reasons behind vandalism?

[Die Rote Fahne]

I was just wondering, for those groups who encourage or take part in vandalism, is there a plan behind it? I mean for what purpose does it help to give progress to the fight? Are there any groups that actually write about the reasons behind vandalism?

Vandalising is a waste of time and takes away the legitimacy of a movement.

Most vandalism is a result of douchebags and angry teenagers who call themselves anarchists.

[Tim Finnegan]

It really depends on what you mean by "vandalism". Purely destructive activity is, of course, pointless, but ideologically disruptive activity can be useful. "Culture jamming" is in vogue with lifestylists right now, I know, but I think that it can be useful if properly employed, specifically, if it acts as a substantial challenge to the logic of capitalism, rather than merely offering some trite liberal "anti-consumerist" remark. What's really key is having a movement which allows these ideological challenges to lead somewhere- for them to meaningfully express a class opposition to capitalism, rather than a mere individual opposition.

[JazzRemington]

I was just wondering, for those groups who encourage or take part in vandalism, is there a plan behind it? I mean for what purpose does it help to give progress to the fight? Are there any groups that actually write about the reasons behind vandalism?

CrimethInc often writes about vandalism, as do post-leftists and insurrectionists. I can't think of any specific texts off-hand, but they have written on the topic at least a little bit.

Basically the plan behind it comes down to several main ideas: 1) people need to see that certain institutions can be easily destroyed (ala propaganda by the deed), 2) to get a certain message across (e.g., certain institutions, persons, places, things are generally unacceptable), 3) to avenge wrong-doings.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

http://www.thecoast.ca/general/flash/18_40_digitaledition/flipedition.html

See the letter on page 3, ridiculously headed:

ANARCHY
More than just graffiti

[Dimmu]

Vandalising is a waste of time and takes away the legitimacy of a movement.

Most vandalism is a result of douchebags and angry teenagers who call themselves anarchists.

Do not agree. Look at the recent anarchist actions in London.. People called it "mindless violence", but in reality the only reason why we still remember that around 500 000 protested in London is because of the Black Block.

[Sasha]

somewhat related: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/31/black-bloc-anti-cuts-protest

[RED DAVE]

It really depends on what you mean by "vandalism". Purely destructive activity is, of course, pointless, but ideologically disruptive activity can be useful. "Culture jamming" is in vogue with lifestylists right now, I know, but I think that it can be useful if properly employed, specifically, if it acts as a substantial challenge to the logic of capitalism, rather than merely offering some trite liberal "anti-consumerist" remark. What's really key is having a movement which allows these ideological challenges to lead somewhere- for them to meaningfully express a class opposition to capitalism, rather than a mere individual opposition.Please give us an example of how vandalism or "culture jamming" can be useful in the USA now.

RED DAVE

[StalinFanboy]

http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/11882

[Os Cangaceiros]

http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/11882

I was going to post that. It's important to read if you want to understand the rationale behind the neo-insurrectionists and their thoughts on "illegalism".

Also worth reading:

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

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/files/Atlantic%20Monthly%20-%20Broken%20Windows.htm

^interesting because it addresses the same sort of issues that some anarchist currents emphasize, only from the standpoint of maintaining order rather than destabilizing it.

[StalinFanboy]

I was going to post that. It's important to read if you want to understand the rationale behind the neo-insurrectionists and their thoughts on "illegalism".

Also worth reading:

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

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/files/Atlantic%20Monthly%20-%20Broken%20Windows.htm

Yeah I think the dude's analysis of the state is pretty spot on, although I'm not entirely convinced that acts of vandalism by anarchists actually amounts to what they are talking about.

[Tim Finnegan]

Please give us an example of how vandalism or "culture jamming" can be useful in the USA now.

RED DAVE
http://broadbrands.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/2573449513_e568b65db2.jpg

(I'm assuming that the frame originally held a sexist advertisement. It's not as if they're hard to come by.)

[Die Rote Fahne]

Do not agree. Look at the recent anarchist actions in London.. People called it "mindless violence", but in reality the only reason why we still remember that around 500 000 protested in London is because of the Black Block.

Mindlessly throwing a brick through a window helps nothing. Well, except the companies who make windows.

I'll rephrase it, cause I am fine with tagging.

Breaking shit just to break it is stupid.

[Paulappaul]

Vandalising is a waste of time and takes away the legitimacy of a movement.

Most vandalism is a result of douchebags and angry teenagers who call themselves anarchists.

Not an Anarchist, not a Teenager, maybe a douchebag, but I do Vandalize

[Os Cangaceiros]

maybe a douchebag

:lol:

[nuisance]

Mindlessly throwing a brick through a window helps nothing. Well, except the companies who make windows.

I'll rephrase it, cause I am fine with tagging.

Breaking shit just to break it is stupid.
I see that you're running with the liberal narrative that has been adopted by the media and many irrelevant leftist sects, worried about scarying people away from their boring reading groups that they've still never heard of.
OK, lets see the decisions/tasks that have to be done for individuals to join a black bloc.
Freeing the day/s, making travel arrangements to get to a place, gather black/dark clothing, getting up early to make the journey with supplies sorted out, taking the time to travel, meeting with others, targetting symbols of privilege and then changing clothes and going anyway from the scene unhinder. What part of this is 'mindless?
As has been reported by journalists, the recent London protest saw the largest ever black bloc presence in the UK, meaning that more people are adopting these tactics. Also, smashing shit doesn't mean that a participant is not involved any community or workplace organising, or indeed anything to that effect.

[RED DAVE]

http://broadbrands.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/2573449513_e568b65db2.jpg

(I'm assuming that the frame originally held a sexist advertisement. It's not as if they're hard to come by.)The bourgeoisie cowers in fear.

RED DAVE

[Cencus]

The bourgeoisie cowers in fear.

RED DAVE

Whats your point? I don't think anyone is saying vandalism is in itself going to bring down capitalism. In the context of that picture, its an attempt at raising awareness, the same as selling papers, or going on demos. We aint exactly at the stage of revolution in the west, quite the opposite, class conciousness seems to be way lower than it was 100 years ago.

If we want to get anywhere we have to bring people onside and one of the ways to do that is to make people think "why did they do that" and maybe go home & question the bullshit they are fed every day.

[thriller]

It's good to push the envelope and startle people, vandalism is a way to do that. Also it depends on your definition of vandalism. According to many news outlets we vandalized the Capitol in Wisconsin by duck taping posters on marble walls.

[RED DAVE]

If we want to get anywhere we have to bring people onside and one of the ways to do that is to make people think "why did they do that" and maybe go home & question the bullshit they are fed every day.This is true, but there is also, given the current wretchedly low state of consciousness, the very real possibility that people will go home & curse out the "destroyers of other people's property."

The problem with vandalism is not vandalism per se but the context. Responding to the OP, there is no plan behind vandalism. There may be an idea but not a plan. Or if there is some kind of plan, it is developed in the absence of an organization and therefore subject to all the foibles of egotism, insanity, adventurism, etc., the probability of which is somewhat less in a group.

Hopefully, groups plan. Can you really think of a group sitting down and planning vandalism? Or would there be too much giggling after five minutes.


Let's see. Malik is going to put up a poster over that sexist sign on Main Street. Louise is going to smash a window in the Merchant Bank. Charlie is going ... . Wait a minute. Tomorrow night is Monday: "Dancing With the Stars." Forget it. Let's wait till Wednesday. No I have a dental appointment. Then Thursday. And so it goes.

RED DAVE

[Agent Ducky]

Hm. I think clever graffiti like the one posted above in the bus stop ad space is great:
It conveys a message, it's not destroying for the sake of destroying, etc. It would hopefully make someone stop and think.

[La Comédie Noire]

You can either join a reading circle or smash a window, both have about the same effect. Although smashing a window can get you coverage on a slow news day (and it's pretty fun actually)

[Agent Ducky]

Bottom line:
Vandalism is Fun (I've written this places, yes)

[La Comédie Noire]

Bottom line:
Vandalism is Fun (I've written this places, yes)

It's better than wasting my time linking to obscure blogs that provide all sorts of intellectual justification for what essentially is an amateur sport.

[Robespierre Richard]

I hate it when people just break shit because it feels fun. Total disrespect for the people who took their time making things and putting them up. If you're going to vandalize, at least do it in a way that you think improves the world around you and not just makes it look even more like shit.

And yeah, there really can't be a plan for vandalism unless you're into being caught by the cops discussing illegal things.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I see that you're running with the liberal narrative that has been adopted by the media and many irrelevant leftist sects, worried about scarying people away from their boring reading groups that they've still never heard of.
OK, lets see the decisions/tasks that have to be done for individuals to join a black bloc.
Freeing the day/s, making travel arrangements to get to a place, gather black/dark clothing, getting up early to make the journey with supplies sorted out, taking the time to travel, meeting with others, targetting symbols of privilege and then changing clothes and going anyway from the scene unhinder. What part of this is 'mindless?
As has been reported by journalists, the recent London protest saw the largest ever black bloc presence in the UK, meaning that more people are adopting these tactics. Also, smashing shit doesn't mean that a participant is not involved any community or workplace organising, or indeed anything to that effect.

Putting a brick through the window of a bank does what? Make the bank have to dish 4000 out of the billions it makes for a new window? Yeah, im so angry, lets break shit and look like idiots to the average working class person.

No.

I'm not running any liberal narrative. I'm okay with violence as a means. So long as it's against cops and those who would do you harm.

I'm sorry, but if Lenin had spent his time breaking windows instead of being productive and spreading the word, the Russia would still be under control of the Tsar.

[Dimmu]

Putting a brick through the window of a bank does what? Make the bank have to dish 4000 out of the billions it makes for a new window? Yeah, im so angry, lets break shit and look like idiots to the average working class person.

No.

I'm not running any liberal narrative. I'm okay with violence as a means. So long as it's against cops and those who would do you harm.

I'm sorry, but if Lenin had spent his time breaking windows instead of being productive and spreading the word, the Russia would still be under control of the Tsar.


Direct action actually gives the anarchists free publicity, sure it mostly negative. But not all people are so easily brainwashed. One of my friends from London said that during the BlackBlock riots people actually joined the group when they saw that structures of capitalism were being smashed.

[RED DAVE]

Direct action actually gives the anarchists free publicity, sure it mostly negative. But not all people are so easily brainwashed. One of my friends from London said that during the BlackBlock riots people actually joined the group when they saw that structures of capitalism were being smashed.Are you sure you want to base your politics on "mostly negative" publicity and an anecdote about people who "actually joined the group." Who were they? For how long were they in the group? How many of them were cops?

RED DAVE

[Marks of Capital]

I think vandalism sends the wrong message. I've heard stories of anarchist (Spain) and communist (Russia) groups protecting property during revolutionary times on the idea that it would soon be the property of the people. Imagine instead of smashing a Starbucks window, occupying a Starbucks and running it as a workers' cooperative. This sends a different message: We (the working class) built all this and it belongs to everyone.

There were factories during Anarchist Spain that expanded their facilities and greatly increased production. When the Fascists took over, much of this was demolished because they didn't want any symbols of collective ownership to remain. That is vandalism.

[Fietsketting]

I'm not running any liberal narrative. I'm okay with violence as a means. So long as it's against cops and those who would do you harm.



And banks have not harmed the working class persons you so highly speak about no?

[StalinFanboy]

we are not afraid of ruins and stuff

[nuisance]

Putting a brick through the window of a bank does what? Make the bank have to dish 4000 out of the billions it makes for a new window? Yeah, im so angry, lets break shit and look like idiots to the average working class person.

No.
Yeah, that's that's completely the intention...uh, no. Anarchists want the bank to dish out billions of quid, no. What are you going on about?

Such an action is not seen to be the be all and end all of revolutionary/insurrectionary practice. These activities are generally seen to be a part of a diversity of tactics, showing an unrelenting assault on capital, not to menation the superiority of the human spirit over material assets, which is constantly neglected in this society. However, as reflected by some anarchists, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/04/477233.html, the black bloc was not a complete success as the aim was to incite mass action, hoping to radicalise, atleast, some of the TUC march, like Millbank. This did not happen, but that is not to say that the bloc was intent on being a relatively seperate entity.

http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/11882
This article has already been suggested, and I would advise you to read it before you carry on making stupid rationale behind property destruction.



I'm not running any liberal narrative. I'm okay with violence as a means. So long as it's against cops and those who would do you harm.
Well considering that captialism is a totalistic entity, these phyiscal features of capitalism do commit violence against you every single day, without restraint. So, following your idea of self-defencce, the idea of bricking a bank would be legitimate.

You clearly are going with the liberal narrative, 'look like idiots to the average working class person'.
Is there an average working class person? We aren't homogeous, which is exactly why the groups with a political agenda only result in coercion. Our dreams and desires cannot be compiled into a simple static list, and to anyone that believes they can do this for anyone other than themself is an enemy. The assertion also plays into the strange idea that an anti-capitalist movement is ever going to gain decent supportive coverage from the capitalist media.
Also, as I already pointed out by the journ Paul Mason, this was the biggest black bloc in the UK recorded. So, it would appear that not everyone is alientated by escalation and permanent conflictuality but actually interested and excited by finding people that want to change their lives immediately.


I'm sorry, but if Lenin had spent his time breaking windows instead of being productive and spreading the word, the Russia would still be under control of the Tsar.
Lenin, nor the Communist Party, ignited the Russian revolution, and only served to strangle it with its narrow and flawed ideas of working class initative.
Anyway, why can't anarchists break stuff and distro information, since is what many reports have clearly stated was happening at M26.
You are the one that are making up these false dichotomies, not those participating.

[RED DAVE]

And banks have not harmed the working class persons you so highly speak about no?What is the likelihood, at this point in the class struggle, of the smashing of a bank window being experienced by large numbers of workers as a positive act?

We are talking about politics here, not about adolescent fantasies.

RED DAVE

[Ravachol]

What is the likelihood, at this point in the class struggle, of the smashing of a bank window being experienced by large numbers of workers as a positive act?

We are talking about politics here, not about adolescent fantasies.

RED DAVE

And why would this have to be the case?

I love how people here flock to the grand idealist narrative of 'public image' like marketing hacks bent on selling politics as some hollow consumer identity. The purely quantitative method of avoiding 'alienating' people by seeking the lowest common denominator as an axis for the intensity of action betrays a fundamental idealism.

Even worse, some people here even seem to herald the integrity of the commodity in defense against 'mindless violence'. Not only is this a ridiculous re-framing of the concept of violence to include the commodity as a potential 'victim' of violence, it presupposes a 'zero level violence' equilibrium which is somehow magically disturbed by the actions of the black bloc. Essentially this states that the total network of domination and exploitation as animated by state and capital doesn't perpetrate a continuum of violence through it's everyday functioning.

What is essentially aimed for with these actions differs, whether the aim is to demystify property as 'untouchable' or in order to propagate a spread of such actions amongst the social base of the protest in order to raise the level of conflict isn't that relevant. As (anarchist) Communists, our role should never be to pander to the media and the factory of cultural hegemony dismissing these acts as 'violence' or 'vandalism' in and of themselves. Our role should not be to jump to the defense of any segment of the old world, whether it's prized material trinkets, it's cultural artifacts or traditions or whatever. The goal of social revolution is to do away with the old world in it's entirety and salvage what is deemed suitable and respect for the commodity certainly isn't part of the Communist project. As such, we cannot view these tactics in a theoretical bubble in and of themselves but only as tactics applied in a specific situation. Whether they have the desired effect or not is to be seen as part of a context and criticism should be made of the specific goals and results, not of the tactics in their theoretical generality.

I'm just gonna be lazy and quote:



Throughout history, many words have been spoken about the programmes revolutionary groups should follow. For some, the revolutionary milieu should always act on it’s own whims, always seek the hardest direct confrontation with the powers that be and set the pace and intensity of the struggle for the rest of the masses in true vanguardist fashion. For others, the time is never right. For them there’s always a media-image to be considered, there’s always the argument that the “conditions just aren’t right yet”. In fact, both positions are problematic.

The former position is susceptible to an endless descent into conflict of ever-increasing intensity while at the same time losing the sheer mass-base to support the level of intensity it’s project requires. It is essential to control the pace of struggle , avoiding unfavorable engagements. After all, social transformation is a process involving society at large and thus requires the sheer force of mass and the sweeping away of social passivity. By focusing on high-intensity conflict at all times, even when there seems to be little to no social base for this level of confrontation, the revolutionary group is forced into the position of a milieu, an easily crushed and controlled clique of isolated evangelists.

On the other hand, the perpetual passivity of the latter position, commonly espoused by placard-waving activists and bureaucrats, leads to an endless cycle of inertia and entropy. The argument put forward by the proponents of ‘waiting for the natural pace of the struggle’ goes as follows:

“If we look at the intensity of the struggles waged outside of our milieu, we can see that any action that is more radical will surely alienate them. For if they were ready for this kind of action, wouldn’t they have undertaken it themselves”

The logical conclusion of this kind of reasoning, however, would be a total negation of the role of revolutionary groups. If all revolutionary groups are to wait for certain actions to occur before copying them, then what is the role of these groups? To follow mass-movements as a rear-guard?

This kind of logic also ignores the fact that the revolutionary groups are made up of working-class members themselves. Why do they value the intensity of the actions of the ‘general’ masses above those of working-class members of the revolutionary groups? That is not to say that the revolutionary groups should set the pace of the class struggle like some kind of visionary vanguard. Even if that would be desirable (which it is not), this would be an idealist fantasy. After all, it is material conditions that move the levers of history, not the sheer willpower of this or that group.

However, as Anton Pannekoek so correctly stated in “Persoonlijke Daad”, the pace of the class struggle does not resemble the marching of a military regiment, the pace and intensity being equal at all places, at all times. Historically some segments of the working class have had a more advanced revolutionary consciousness than others and the intensity of conflict differs throughout the social terrain.

For the revolutionary group to act like a ‘whip of the class struggle’, constantly raising the level of conflict until it cumulates in a revolutionary situation, what matters is the spread of actions rather than the particular intensity of a single action.

After all, the force of revolution is social and not military. Social revolution is achieved by societal transformation and is thus measured not by single clashes but by the extent to which the social order is disturbed and transformed, the extent to which our goals are achieved. No power can exist without the pseudo-voluntary servitude of those it dominates. General revolt disturbs this servitude and breaks the smooth-running cogs of the machine of domination. What matters is thus not the particular intensity of an action but the generalized spread of revolt.

For this reason, the intensity of actions matters only insofar as it supports the wider spread of such actions. At times it might be better to restrain oneself if this means that actions of lower intensity spread further amongst the working class. This is not to say one should be swayed by portrayals in the media , parliaments or other bourgeois institutions with which we have nothing to do. Our goal is to subvert their order and counting on their blessings for doing so would be utter folly. Neither should we bow to cultural hegemony and restrain our actions because dominant discourse ‘frowns upon them’. After all, it is to be expected that the actions of groups seeking to overthrow a given social order are ‘frowned upon’ by the discourse of that same order. Anything else would, again, be folly.

What we should consider, however, is the spreading potential of our actions amongst the social base of a given struggle. If we undertake a certain action and we suspect that it will set a ‘leading example’ surely to be followed by others it is to be undertaken, regardless of what ‘the media’ will say about it or if some will speak shame of it. We cannot pander to the lowest common denominator if we seek to raise the level of confrontation. If, however, our actions turn out to be too conflictual for the moment, continuing a raise of confrontation would only result in a quick and glory less defeat of a small group.

In the end, we can only analyze every given situation, it’s potential and experiment with actions and evaluate the results, constantly re-adjusting our strategy on the basis of practical experience rather than dogma bursting forth from theoretical bubbles spawned in the ivory towers of a few, whether those of the armed vanguardist or the placard-waving activist. The only pointers we can go by is the refusal of compromise or mediation of any kind and a focus on raising the general level of confrontation, the spread of revolutionary consciousness.

[bricolage]

since when did people start saying M26, that is soooo fucking lame.

[RED DAVE]

What is the likelihood, at this point in the class struggle, of the smashing of a bank window being experienced by large numbers of workers as a positive act?

We are talking about politics here, not about adolescent fantasies.
And why would this have to be the case?It is not a matter of it having to be the case: it is the case. Is it possible that this can and will change, but it is the case now, and if people do this, don't be surprised if there's a backlash.


I love how people here flock to the grand idealist narrative of 'public image' like marketing hacks bent on selling politics as some hollow consumer identity.You are willfully confusing bourgeois propaganda with the actuality of current consciousness.


The purely quantitative method of avoiding 'alienating' people by seeking the lowest common denominator as an axis for the intensity of action betrays a fundamental idealism.The very fact of using an ideal concept of conscious betrays a fundamental idealism.


Even worse, some people here even seem to herald the integrity of the commodity in defense against 'mindless violence'.You are blowing smoke. What some sensible people are saying is that if you engage in vandalism at the current stage of consciousness, it is not likely to have a positive effect on consciousness.


Not only is this a ridiculous re-framing of the concept of violence to include the commodity as a potential 'victim' of violence, it presupposes a 'zero level violence' equilibrium which is somehow magically disturbed by the actions of the black bloc.What you are doing is defending an action that could well retard political development.


Essentially this states that the total network of domination and exploitation as animated by state and capital doesn't perpetrate a continuum of violence through it's everyday functioning. No one is denying capitalist violence. What you are doing is using capitalist violence to justify "getting your rocks off." :D


What is essentially aimed for with these actions differs, whether the aim is to demystify property as 'untouchable' or in order to propagate a spread of such actions amongst the social base of the protest in order to raise the level of conflict isn't that relevant. As (anarchist) Communists, our role should never be to pander to the media and the factory of cultural hegemony dismissing these acts as 'violence' or 'vandalism' in and of themselves.What you are completely ignoring, with this fine piece of mystification is the likely outcome of your actions. You say what you are "aiming" for. What if it is obvious that you have missed the mark.


Our role should not be to jump to the defense of any segment of the old world, whether it's prized material trinkets, it's cultural artifacts or traditions or whatever.Not the issue.


The goal of social revolution is to do away with the old world in it's entirety and salvage what is deemed suitable and respect for the commodity certainly isn't part of the Communist project.Again, this is not the issue. Tis issue is whether or not these actions advance or retard the development of revolutionary consciousness.


As such, we cannot view these tactics in a theoretical bubble in and of themselves but only as tactics applied in a specific situation.Okay, but let's remember that in the current situation they don't work.


Whether they have the desired effect or not is to be seen as part of a context and criticism should be made of the specific goals and results, not of the tactics in their theoretical generality.Correct, and it's clear that, right now, they don't work.


I'm just gonna be lazy and quote:It would be nice to give your source and a link.

RED DAVE

[Agent Ducky]

Putting a brick through the window of a bank does what? Make the bank have to dish 4000 out of the billions it makes for a new window? Yeah, im so angry, lets break shit and look like idiots to the average working class person.

No.

I'm not running any liberal narrative. I'm okay with violence as a means. So long as it's against cops and those who would do you harm.

I'm sorry, but if Lenin had spent his time breaking windows instead of being productive and spreading the word, the Russia would still be under control of the Tsar.

And if Lenin had just been some kid who breaks windows, the Germans wouldn't have sent him over to go stir things up in Russia...