Anarchists Attack Surveillence Industry (UK)

[Eastside Revolt]

http://325.nostate.net/?p=2511

27 May 2011
“Last night Inside Out Security in New Basford had it’s windows smashed.
We did this because they are responsible for making surveillance equipment that watches us everywhere we go. They are specifically responsible for a large number of CCTV cameras in schools around Nottingham. These cameras in schools further stigmatise and terrorise the young, positioning them as the dangers to each other, training them to become used to being watched, controlling their behaviour and taking away their freedom.

Instead of encouraging the young to love and live with wild passion this society is caging them- forcing them into lives not of their choosing.
We want to destroy these companies that profit from the sickness of social surveillance on behalf of capitalism and the state.

We also did this in solidarity with those who resist the G8 and G20 conferences occurring in France this week. While the government leaders from around the world discuss ways to keep their power, we will fight their systems of oppression that are all around us.

So their surveillance is there to protect us? Fuck that. Their cameras exist to make us live in fear, to do as we are told, to make us feel alienated and scared of one another. The surveillance system is there to serve the interests of the rich and protect their property, power and capital.

We see something that destroys our freedom, our relationships with each other and we wish to attack it with the means we have available. So whilst this was a small act of defiance, quickly remedied in part by their insurance, we carry out this act because of the very fact that we search for freedom from all forms of social control. Every time we see similar acts of rebellion, from throwing rocks at cops to the burning of a prison, a smile spreads across our face and recognition that the attack against this society of domination continues. We will continue our participation in this attack, because it is our passion- settling for a life of meaningless subordination is not an option for us, not when all around us are examples of our friends, families and ourselves being continually fucked over by rampant capitalism, and the colluding state.


We must look to each other with love and solidarity.

We must destroy what keeps us apart with rage.

Against the prison society. For total freedom.”

[dwyck]

As much as I respect that the people involved had good intentions, I fail to see how this will achieve anything except to create a slightly amusing story for those involved to tell to their anarcho-chums...

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

As much as I respect that the people involved had good intentions, I fail to see how this will achieve anything except to create a slightly amusing story for those involved to tell to their anarcho-chums...
' I fail to see how this will achieve anything except to create a slightly amusing story for those involved to tell to their anarcho-chums...'
It serves as a Propaganda of the Deed and directly shows the fallibility of the very system that it had stricken against and that these actions are to represent in solidarity with others the commitment for a continued campaign of resistance with all of those striking against the Surveillance Industry through Direct Armed Action.

[Leftsolidarity]

As much as I respect that the people involved had good intentions, I fail to see how this will achieve anything except to create a slightly amusing story for those involved to tell to their anarcho-chums...

Starts with little things. It's not just "Hey, let's completely destroy the capitalist state today okay?"

[Terminator X]

The group responsible even admitted that "whilst this was a small act of defiance, quickly remedied in part by their insurance, we carry out this act because of the very fact that we search for freedom from all forms of social control" so save the "this is just a bunch of anarchists running around blowing shit up and not contributing to class struggle" posts.

Not every act of violence against capitalist oppression has to lead instantaneously into a mass struggle of the proletariat. Any act of defiance that causes headaches for capitalists (even if that means the pain in the ass of filing an insurance claim) is OK by me. It sure as hell beats quoting 200 year old texts to disinterested workers or passing out flyers and newspapers at events that people throw on the ground 30 seconds later.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

The group responsible even admitted that "whilst this was a small act of defiance, quickly remedied in part by their insurance, we carry out this act because of the very fact that we search for freedom from all forms of social control" so save the "this is just a bunch of anarchists running around blowing shit up and not contributing to class struggle" posts.

Not every act of violence against capitalist oppression has to lead instantaneously into a mass struggle of the proletariat. Any act of defiance that causes headaches for capitalists (even if that means the pain in the ass of filing an insurance claim) is OK by me. It sure as hell beats quoting 200 year old texts to disinterested workers or passing out flyers and newspapers at events that people throw on the ground 30 seconds later.

1.) 'Not every act of violence against capitalist oppression has to lead instantaneously into a mass struggle of the proletariat.'
This is indeed true. The Urban Guerrilla Struggles of the Red Army Faction, Direct Action (France), Brigate Rosse are all factuality of this. However, while these actions might not lead to a systematic mass struggle of the Proletariat, these actions themselves serve as needed actions in order to expose fallibility of the Capitalist System and act as forces against the very system that they've exposed the fallibility of.
2.) 'Any act of defiance that causes headaches for capitalists (even if that means the pain in the ass of filing an insurance claim) is OK by me. '
As if it is correctly done and used in a fashion against the Capitalist System in a method that it serves as;
A.) A symbolic strike against the very Capitalist System.
B.) Is a Direct Response against Capitalism and Imperialism.
C.) It empowers the Proletariat into action through showing the fallibility of the very economic and political system.
It is if it fits into the above-- To be supported.
3.) ' It sure as hell beats quoting 200 year old texts to disinterested workers or passing out flyers and newspapers at events that people throw on the ground 30 seconds later.'
While Armed Struggle is indeed massively important, the Theoretical Struggle should not be forgotten as the Theoretical Struggle serves as the basis for any potential Armed Action and this should not be forgotten.

[black magick hustla]

not worth the jail time

[dwyck]

The group responsible even admitted that "whilst this was a small act of defiance, quickly remedied in part by their insurance, we carry out this act because of the very fact that we search for freedom from all forms of social control" so save the "this is just a bunch of anarchists running around blowing shit up and not contributing to class struggle" posts.

Not every act of violence against capitalist oppression has to lead instantaneously into a mass struggle of the proletariat. Any act of defiance that causes headaches for capitalists (even if that means the pain in the ass of filing an insurance claim) is OK by me. It sure as hell beats quoting 200 year old texts to disinterested workers or passing out flyers and newspapers at events that people throw on the ground 30 seconds later.


this is just a bunch of anarchists running around blowing shit up and not contributing to class struggle :D

It is completely irrelevant to anyone in the working class apart from a few anarchists. There is now way at all that you can say otherwise. They'd spend their time a lot better by actually trying to interact with 'normal' working class people on issues they are actually bothered about.

When the anarchist movement start to realise that we have to start putting some hard work in to bring about change and not just smash some windows (although I'm not against the smashing of windows of corporate business), then we will start getting somewhere.

[Eastside Revolt]

this is just a bunch of anarchists running around blowing shit up and not contributing to class struggle :D

It is completely irrelevant to anyone in the working class apart from a few anarchists. There is now way at all that you can say otherwise. They'd spend their time a lot better by actually trying to interact with 'normal' working class people on issues they are actually bothered about.

Clearly you are either (a) not working class, (b) not living in a city with surveillance cameras everywhere (buses, intersection, at work etc.), or (c) aren't disturbed by having rolling police footage all around you all the time. That doesn't mean the rest of us should have to put up with it. Or that people should have to wait to attack.

[Terminator X]

It is completely irrelevant to anyone in the working class apart from a few anarchists. There is now way at all that you can say otherwise. They'd spend their time a lot better by actually trying to interact with 'normal' working class people on issues they are actually bothered about.

When the anarchist movement start to realise that we have to start putting some hard work in to bring about change and not just smash some windows (although I'm not against the smashing of windows of corporate business), then we will start getting somewhere.

Like what? Study groups? Roundtable discussions of works by dead revolutionaries? Flyers at events that people forget 10 minutes later? Look, I'm not against using some historical analysis to further a movement, but at some point, you have to get out of the library and the study halls and take some concrete action.

The reason I'm now leaning anarcho-communist is specifically because anarchists take direct actions such as this, so I'm at least one person that these actions have affected and attracted to the movement.

Also, it doesn't appear that any jail time was levied in this attack, so I'd say it was a fairly successful operation. There is a big difference between "smashing some windows" and spending a couple nights in jail, and a specifically-targeted action such as this that directly affects an apparatus of oppression.

[Tim Finnegan]

It serves as a Propaganda of the Deed...
Then, to be quite frank, it was remarkably short on both propaganda and deed.

You want to do your "propaganda of the deed", hit something that counts. You want to do some economic sabotage, hit something that counts. You want to make even the slightest difference, hit something that counts. The storefront of a local security firm does not, in any meaningful sense, count.

[Leftsolidarity]

Easy to say behind a computer Tim

[Tim Finnegan]

Easy to say behind a computer Tim
Didn't say it was going to be easy to carry off, just that it's the only way for it be worth the bother.

[Terminator X]

You want to do your "propaganda of the deed", hit something that counts. You want to do some economic sabotage, hit something that counts. You want to make even the slightest difference, hit something that counts.

Such as? I'm open to suggestions...and ones that wouldn't get everyone involved thrown in jail, of course.

Everyone who scoffs at anarchist tactics seems to have some "better way" of going about fighting organs of capitalism, yet can never elucidate what that alternative might be. Putting out a newspaper that 15 people (who are already "leftists") will read doesn't count.

[Manic Impressive]

Such as? I'm open to suggestions...and ones that wouldn't get everyone involved thrown in jail, of course.
The reason you'd get thrown in jail for it is precisely because it would matter. You want suggestions how about disrupting mass media broadcasting equipment, closing down a motorway, sabotaging the machinery which make the cameras there's a million and one things someone could do to disrupt capital and actually mean something but petty acts of vandalism don't mean shit.
Not that I wish to incite anyone to do any of the afore mentioned suggestions but if you're shit scared of repercussions don't expect people to be excited about a bit of smashed glass.

The most important thing my Dad ever taught me was the eleventh commandment
"Thou Shalt Not Get Caught"

[Tim Finnegan]

Such as? I'm open to suggestions...and ones that wouldn't get everyone involved thrown in jail, of course.
Well, honestly, I wouldn't bother smashing things at all, because I don't think it does much good at the sort of scale we're talking about. I'm just saying that, if you really must smash, smash with self-evident purpose, not simply with obscurely-expressed rage. Nobody outside of the anarchist scene- which, locally, will be like a few dozen people- is going to know what this signifies, and quite possibly not even be aware that it signifies anything at all. For all your sneering about obscure newspapers, this sort of thing actually has less potential to open a line of communication between the radical left and the working class-in-general.


Everyone who scoffs at anarchist tactics seems to have some "better way" of going about fighting organs of capitalism, yet can never elucidate what that alternative might be. Putting out a newspaper that 15 people (who are already "leftists") will read doesn't count."You do better" is not a substantial response to criticism, it's just an attempt to shut down criticism. I don't need to be a doctor to tell you that quaffing gin will not cure a stomach ache.

[Renno]

Then, to be quite frank, it was remarkably short on both propaganda and deed.

You want to do your "propaganda of the deed", hit something that counts. You want to do some economic sabotage, hit something that counts. You want to make even the slightest difference, hit something that counts. The storefront of a local security firm does not, in any meaningful sense, count.

Hitting the storefront of a security firm, shows that cameras do not prevent. It shows that they are there, to control and spread the thought that the government can save you from all the bad terrorists. As long as they can watch and control you. So for me that counts.

And I can imagine, that destroying the storefront, can be expensive for a local security firm. So that counts also for me.

And if they have to close for a day, to clean up, is a slight difference in my eyes

[Tim Finnegan]

Hitting the storefront of a security firm, shows that cameras do not prevent. It shows that they are there, to control and spread the thought that the government can save you from all the bad terrorists. As long as they can watch and control you. So for me that counts.
And you really believe that this (rather weak rationalisation) is the spontaneous inference that even that handful of people who are aware of the event are going to make? And not just, say, "Bloody kids smashing stuff again"?

"Propaganda of the deed" requires both the widespread awareness of an act, and an understanding of the ideological basis of an act. This lacked both, and will appear to those few who aware of it but that do not actually read the handful of anarchist sites that this announcement appeared on as a minor act of violence, and at the very most as some yob's protest against CCTVs-in-abstract.


And I can imagine, that destroying the storefront, can be expensive for a local security firm. So that counts also for me.

And if they have to close for a day, to clean up, is a slight difference in my eyesThey'll just stick cardboard over it, get the glazers out the next day, get their insurance to cover it. It's a nuisance at most, as even those behind this acknowledge.

[bcbm]

When the anarchist movement start to realise that we have to start putting some hard work in to bring about change and not just smash some windows (although I'm not against the smashing of windows of corporate business), then we will start getting somewhere.

i doubt it

[dwyck]

Clearly you are either (a) not working class, (b) not living in a city with surveillance cameras everywhere (buses, intersection, at work etc.), or (c) aren't disturbed by having rolling police footage all around you all the time. That doesn't mean the rest of us should have to put up with it. Or that people should have to wait to attack.

I am working class, with lots of security cameras around me and am quite disturbed by it all actually.

But its not exactly a going to attract anyone to the movement is it?

'Did you hear about those anarchists who smashed up some security firms windows?'
'yeh, I think I'm going to become an anarchist because of that'

[dwyck]

Like what? Study groups? Roundtable discussions of works by dead revolutionaries? Flyers at events that people forget 10 minutes later? Look, I'm not against using some historical analysis to further a movement, but at some point, you have to get out of the library and the study halls and take some concrete action.

The reason I'm now leaning anarcho-communist is specifically because anarchists take direct actions such as this, so I'm at least one person that these actions have affected and attracted to the movement.

Also, it doesn't appear that any jail time was levied in this attack, so I'd say it was a fairly successful operation. There is a big difference between "smashing some windows" and spending a couple nights in jail, and a specifically-targeted action such as this that directly affects an apparatus of oppression.

What are you talking about?

I said people should try interact with normal working class people and take up issues that they (the working class) are bothered about. Sorry, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone go on about how much they hate CCTV when they're down the local pub.

What I'm saying is get out there, talk to people, find out whats bothering them, see if there's an issue to be fought there, would it get the community on side.

There have been some decent things going on from the anarchist community recently, don't get me wrong. There's some good activists out there. But within the anarchist movement, they are a minority tbh.

[Eastside Revolt]

I am working class, with lots of security cameras around me and am quite disturbed by it all actually.

But its not exactly a going to attract anyone to the movement is it?

'Did you hear about those anarchists who smashed up some security firms windows?'
'yeh, I think I'm going to become an anarchist because of that'

I wouldn't immediately assume that those involved aren't also involved in more "movement building" work. Again this doesn't take away from the validity of attack or the practice of attack.

[La Comédie Noire]

It's just hard because it would be attempting so little for so much. I mean if you actually have ever had the misfortune of being sucked into the justice system (and sucked in is a good description) not only is it expensive and time consuming, but it can ruin your life or confine you for a considerable duration of it.

You'd be surprised how much trouble they can make for you out of a little property damage, which is why I give props to the people who do it, but I don't know if I could.

[t.shonku]

As much as I respect that the people involved had good intentions, I fail to see how this will achieve anything except to create a slightly amusing story for those involved to tell to their anarcho-chums...

First of all I must congratulate our Anarchist friends for carrying out attacks against UK surveillance industry , which is actually a tool and symbol of state sponsored bullying.


Now answering to your question , I know this action was a small scale but look at the big picture, this incident will inspire so many to carry out attacks against surveillance industries, isn't that great???

[Tim Finnegan]

Just for the record, I think that we should probably stop calling it "the surveillance industry". It's a rather grandiose title for a medium-sized regional firm, even if they do, according to the OP, stop the young from "living with wild passion", which I take to mean getting each other off behind the bike sheds.

[Leftsolidarity]

Just for the record, I think that we should probably stop calling it "the surveillance industry". It's a rather grandiose title for a medium-sized regional firm, even if they do, according to the OP, stop the young from "living with wild passion", which I take to mean getting each other off behind the bike sheds.


What should it be referred to as?

[Os Cangaceiros]

not worth the jail time

It's the UK. They probably wouldn't have done much time.

Not like here in 'murika, where property destruction is a "big deal".

[Os Cangaceiros]

'
It serves as a Propaganda of the Deed and directly shows the fallibility of the very system that it had stricken against and that these actions are to represent in solidarity with others the commitment for a continued campaign of resistance with all of those striking against the Surveillance Industry through Direct Armed Action.

I don't think it's POTD. This action was obviously done to fit in with a continuity of actions within the milieu...it's really hard to imagine anyone outside the proverbial ideological ghetto even paying any attention to this. POTD was originally adopted to get ordinary people to say, "hey, these cool revolutionaries/anarchists have been slaying our oppressors for a while now! WE should start slaying our oppressors!", and then the revolution would start. Obviously the tactic didn't really bare fruit, because that's not really how "consciousness" works.

[Tim Finnegan]

What should it be referred to as?
Well, "Inside Out Security" would be the obvious, but "a security firm" would also work.

[tracher999]

nice keep going:cool:

[Luís Henrique]

Such as? I'm open to suggestions...and ones that wouldn't get everyone involved thrown in jail, of course.

If it is worth the trouble, it necessarily will get everyone involved thrown in jail.

Unless there are so many people involved, there is no place in jail for all of them.


Everyone who scoffs at anarchist tactics seems to have some "better way" of going about fighting organs of capitalism, yet can never elucidate what that alternative might be. Putting out a newspaper that 15 people (who are already "leftists") will read doesn't count.Organise. Demand better wages. Demand better working conditions. Demand the dismissal of abusive bosses. Organise. Set up unions, newspapers, whatever. Organise. Denounce capitalism. Organise. Explain how people are exploited. Discuss how society can be reorganised without the bourgeois, the police, the military, without money. Organise. Engage in class struggle.

Sorry, there are no shortcuts. It needs to be done the long, boring, tedious, unglamorous way. Else either nothing is done, or some people will get thrown into jail.

Luís Henrique

[nuisance]

Sorry, there are no shortcuts. It needs to be done the long, boring, tedious, unglamorous way.
What naive arrogance. It never ceases to amaze me how some leftists seems to believe there is a clear cut formula to create the, so far, uncreated. Perhaps this has to be done to convince themselves that the past work and establishment of various formalised organisations weren't a complete waste of time in bringing about the destruction of State and Capital.

[bcbm]

I am working class, with lots of security cameras around me and am quite disturbed by it all actually.

But its not exactly a going to attract anyone to the movement is it?

'Did you hear about those anarchists who smashed up some security firms windows?'
'yeh, I think I'm going to become an anarchist because of that'

i don't think this is true, i think these kind of actions can attract people to anarchist ideas. after starbucks and what not got smashed in seattle there was a definite spike in the number of anarchists. no press is bad press and doing crazy shit gets you press

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I could name a shit load of people who have been turned onto anarchism after seeing the destruction of symbolic targets. Think back to Millbank, the TUC protest - some leftists moan about these attacks and how they were damaging to the movement, but this militancy has actually helped to build the movement and turn youngsters into people who want to see capitalism's destruction.

With that in mind, I don't think that this incident is on nearly the same scale, but it is not something to denounce - with enough publicity, this would grab the attention of oppressed people. Sadly enough, your average proletarian on a council estate in south east London will not hear about it, and probably doesn't know that he can target his anger towards symbolic representations of the system that fucks him over and actually overthrow that system. I'd like to see coordinated attacks against more relevent targets to the times, I've seen more recruits to revolutionary ideas through direct action than I ever have when I sold papers.

[Ele'ill]

I don't see 'attacks' like this being counter-productive. The popular belief is that there are a group of anarchists (about ten) who travel around the world like Carmen Sandiego wrecking havoc and then leaving. Clearly this isn't the case- there are lots of autonomous actions taking place in any given city where those taking part may not have anything to do with other anarchists or militant leftists located there. We do have numbers but we don't act in tens and twenties, sometimes it's ones and twos, other times it's hundreds and thousands.

These types of actions aren't the monthly or yearly 'direct action quota'. Stop viewing it like that.

[Ele'ill]

Then, to be quite frank, it was remarkably short on both propaganda and deed.

You want to do your "propaganda of the deed", hit something that counts. You want to do some economic sabotage, hit something that counts. You want to make even the slightest difference, hit something that counts. The storefront of a local security firm does not, in any meaningful sense, count.

On a grand scale- at some summit demonstrations the demonstrators were outmatched by the police- and this is what was seen globally when watching the news. Billions of dollars in security, leftists being beaten, the state in full control and in full confidence. What wasn't seen was the people living in the projects coming out and marching, clapping and raising their fists from their windows, giving words of encouragement and generally supporting, to varying degrees, the anti-capitalist action.

My point here is that when someone hears about a midnight run of property destruction in some town thousands of miles from them they think 'That wasn't really worth it.' But on a local level, the people from that town, some of them, are going to start thinking about it. It agitates on a local level. We cannot rely on events at point A to always move people politically all the way over at point B.

We had some sketch bloc marches here, they were short and lots of things were done poorly. This is what was seen on the news and in the press. What wasn't seen amidst those marches/actions that failed 'from a global perspective' were the number of people coming out to watch and engaging us in discussion. Talking to us about how the police were afraid. How there are so many of them in comparison to us. How they really weren't too sure about our politics but we're onto something, how the police sent them letters before the march (wealthy area) saying to stay in doors that we were going to cause all kinds of problems. People get used to the idea of militant demonstration not being weird at all but quite necessary and it breaks the spell.

[Tim Finnegan]

What naive arrogance. It never ceases to amaze me how some leftists seems to believe there is a clear cut formula to create the, so far, uncreated. Perhaps this has to be done to convince themselves that the past work and establishment of various formalised organisations weren't a complete waste of time in bringing about the destruction of State and Capital.
Wait, I'm sorry, I don't quite grasp this: Luís argues for the slow and steady consolidation and expansion of working class political power, while you and yours argue for individualistic acts of propagandistic adventure that will awaken the stupid masses from their peasant slumber, and he's the arrogant one? You're really going to have to run me through this one again.


On a grand scale- at some summit demonstrations the demonstrators were outmatched by the police- and this is what was seen globally when watching the news. Billions of dollars in security, leftists being beaten, the state in full control and in full confidence. What wasn't seen was the people living in the projects coming out and marching, clapping and raising their fists from their windows, giving words of encouragement and generally supporting, to varying degrees, the anti-capitalist action.

My point here is that when someone hears about a midnight run of property destruction in some town thousands of miles from them they think 'That wasn't really worth it.' But on a local level, the people from that town, some of them, are going to start thinking about it. It agitates on a local level. We cannot rely on events at point A to always move people politically all the way over at point B.
I understand the logic, but I don't think that it applies in this situation. In this case, the ideological content of this act was utterly obscure to all outside of a small and- if it's like those elsewhere- isolated anarchist clique, and did not represent any expressed popular sentiment, but, rather, the personal grudges of that clique. I've previously compared actions such as this to the smashing of bank windows during recent protests, such as the G20 march in London last year, which, although suffering from the same individualistic and adventuristic flaws as this act, were self-evident in their ideological content and represented the head of a popular anti-finance sentiment, and as such gained widespread sympathy, if not actual political support. (I can't say the same of the Black Bloc action at the recent TUC march, though, so I would be more conservative in that than Ahmadinnerjacket.)

Property destruction is not, in itself, an invalid tactic, but if it is to be worthwhile then it needs to be deployed with some degree of care, and what I see here is not care, but, or at least I suspect as much, a venting of political frustration, which, understandable as it may be, isn't actually something to get excited about.

[Zav]

Good for them! The act may be small, but its effect is much larger than a little vandalism.

[nuisance]

Wait, I'm sorry, I don't quite grasp this: Luís argues for the slow and steady consolidation and expansion of working class political power, while you and yours argue for individualistic acts of propagandistic adventure that will awaken the stupid masses from their peasant slumber, and he's the arrogant one? You're really going to have to run me through this one again.
Who are my 'you and yours'? What's wrong with concious individualism, or egoism and who the fuck thinks these actions are to 'awaken the stupid masses'?

:blink:

[Ele'ill]

I understand the logic, but I don't think that it applies in this situation. In this case, the ideological content of this act was utterly obscure to all outside of a small and- if it's like those elsewhere- isolated anarchist clique, and did not represent any expressed popular sentiment, but, rather, the personal grudges of that clique. I've previously compared actions such as this to the smashing of bank windows during recent protests, such as the G20 march in London last year, which, although suffering from the same individualistic and adventuristic flaws as this act, were self-evident in their ideological content and represented the head of a popular anti-finance sentiment, and as such gained widespread sympathy, if not actual political support.

Correct, the niche actions targeting 'new' or 'undiscussed' targets will gain the same momentum, understanding and hopefully support as what is seen, understood and sympathized with now (banks and corporate targets). Had property destruction against banks by anarchists and other militants never taken place you wouldn't see such current support. There would be a lack of depth in the support it would get and it would have to go through the entire cycle that has taken place up till this point in time- dealing with the media, dealing with people watching etc etc - now, quite often, the media will simply report that anarchists have engaged in property destruction targeting banks and simply skip the 'boo hoo, how violent' bit. That is important as hell and this certainly isn't a 'media apology' as we all know they're shite but what they're doing is realizing that the people they're reporting to, the general audience- the public, have a greater understanding of why those attacks are taking place. It happened frequently enough that people realized it wasn't random or temporary hooliganism- it's real.




Property destruction is not, in itself, an invalid tactic, but if it is to be worthwhile then it needs to be deployed with some degree of care, and what I see here is not care, but, or at least I suspect as much, a venting of political frustration, which, understandable as it may be, isn't actually something to get excited about.

I'm not particularly excited about this however I wouldn't put it in the category of 'unimportant'.

[Tim Finnegan]

Who are my 'you and yours'? What's wrong with concious individualism, or egoism...
Nothing, but it's not a stand-in for a class-movement.


...and who the fuck thinks these actions are to 'awaken the stupid masses'?
That's the traditional logic behind the "Propaganda of the Deed", isn't it?



Correct, the niche actions targeting 'new' or 'undiscussed' targets will gain the same momentum, understanding and hopefully support as what is seen, understood and sympathized with now (banks and corporate targets). Had property destruction against banks by anarchists and other militants never taken place you wouldn't see such current support. There would be a lack of depth in the support it would get and it would have to go through the entire cycle that has taken place up till this point in time- dealing with the media, dealing with people watching etc etc - now, quite often, the media will simply report that anarchists have engaged in property destruction targeting banks and simply skip the 'boo hoo, how violent' bit. That is important as hell and this certainly isn't a 'media apology' as we all know they're shite but what they're doing is realizing that the people they're reporting to, the general audience- the public, have a greater understanding of why those attacks are taking place. It happened frequently enough that people realized it wasn't random or temporary hooliganism- it's real.
What you seem to be suggesting is that adventuring anarchists will somehow lead the progression of public discontent through direct action, which I'm pretty sceptical of. I don't think that there's any historical tendency for the working class to pick their targets based on the actions of a militant minority.


I'm not particularly excited about this however I wouldn't put it in the category of 'unimportant'.
I can't see how it's actually going to influence people, though.

[nuisance]

Nothing, but it's not a stand-in for a class-movement.
Who said it does? Individualists generally have a class based focus, except it centres around the individual who realises themselves as a contradiction, part of the exploited. These concious individuals then seek accomplices, among the exploited, to further their own and consequently collective struggle.



That's the traditional logic behind the "Propaganda of the Deed", isn't it?

Not really. It's generally used to show an alternative, show anger and a willingness of some people to break normality- stopping 'business as usual', highlighting a constant existing tension within society. Actions like smashing a security firm is generally to say that these phyiscal entities are vulnerabe and can be attacked, the hope is that these will multiply. Anarchists by no means want to stay in a corner on their own but to link u struggles into a totalistic view of capital, though there is also no desire to wait.
Attacks like this by no means imply a willingness to avoid other ways of acting however, why would they want to limit themselves?

[bricolage]

i don't think this is true, i think these kind of actions can attract people to anarchist ideas. after starbucks and what not got smashed in seattle there was a definite spike in the number of anarchists. no press is bad press and doing crazy shit gets you press
this is true but starbucks was smashed in the midst of a mass event with enormous coverage, I am almost one hundred per cent sure that noone outside of those that saw this posted somewhere on the internet (and to have found it I'd imagine they were already part of the anarchist milieu) will even know it happened.

[nuisance]

passerbys? potenial news coverage? These are localised events and are not done with idea that everyone and their dog will not that it has occured.

[bricolage]

passerbys? potenial news coverage? These are localised events and are not done with idea that everyone and their dog will not that it has occured.
i walk past broken windows all the time, I never once connect them to anarchists or anything other than people breaking windows.
has there been any news coverage of this? (honest question)
EDIT: I googled it, the top three results were indymedia, the fourth was an insurrectionist blog and the fifth was this thread.

[nuisance]

i walk past broken windows all the time, I never once connect them to anarchists or anything other than people breaking windows.
has there been any news coverage of this? (honest question)
Perhaps there was graff on the scene? I don't know if there's been any news coverage but actions like this have gained it before, unsurprisingly.

[Tim Finnegan]

Who said it does? Individualists generally have a class based focus, except it centres around the individual who realises themselves as a contradiction, part of the exploited. These concious individuals then seek accomplices, among the exploited, to further their own and consequently collective struggle.
I don't see how an act like this has any particular class basis in itself. That relies entirely upon the ideological content of the act, which is by no-means self-evident, and- as Bricolage mentioned, received very limited media coverage to the extent that any of us are able to discern. Uniformity of class background does not in itself suggest a definite class character.


Not really. It's generally used to show an alternative, show anger and a willingness of some people to break normality- stopping 'business as usual', highlighting a constant existing tension within society. Actions like smashing a security firm is generally to say that these phyiscal entities are vulnerabe and can be attacked, the hope is that these will multiply. Anarchists by no means want to stay in a corner on their own but to link u struggles into a totalistic view of capital, though there is also no desire to wait."Showing an alternative" through individual acts is what I was referring to. It presumes that an alternative conciousness is injected into the working class by adventuring individuals, rather than constructed through collective struggle.
I mean, the big gripe was apparently that the company in question had a contract with local schools- which does make you wonder why the company, and the local authorities, were the target of choice- but did this actually have any involvement by pupils at those schools? You can't presume to insert yourself into a struggle and expect your actions to be authentically representative of any popular participation of that struggle. This is a tactic that, by its nature, excludes those whom it presumes to represent; more Alex Salmond than John Maclean, if you'll permit me a provincial analogy.


Attacks like this by no means imply a willingness to avoid other ways of acting however, why would they want to limit themselves?Well, I didn't say that they did. I'm sure that the anarchists in question do other entirely useful things, I just wonder why they don't more of that and less of this, or even something of a similar nature, but with more substantially an effect.

[bricolage]

Perhaps there was graff on the scene? I don't know if there's been any news coverage but actions like this have gained it before, unsurprisingly.
I really really doubt there was any coverage of this at all.
in fact I'd say the vast majority of these kinds of actions never reach anyone aside from the immediate participants and those within their milieu.

[Rooster]

If you want to hit any firm economically, stand in full view of one of their security cameras on a busy part of the street for a half hour/an hour/a couple of hours every day then request the footage back through the Freedom of Information Act. They'll have to comply but they'll have to spend excessive amounts of money blacking out or blurrying the faces of every other passer by.

[bcbm]

I really really doubt there was any coverage of this at all.
in fact I'd say the vast majority of these kinds of actions never reach anyone aside from the immediate participants and those within their milieu.

so at worse they're inspiring others in the milieu. not great, but not that bad either

[bricolage]

so at worse they're inspiring others in the milieu. not great, but not that bad either
i'm not passing any judgement (I've got my own opinion on acts like this) it was more when you wrote it could 'attract people to anarchist ideas', I don't think it can because I don't think anyone who isn't already an anarchist will know about it. it's hard to argue these things though because whenever you say anything someone says 'ah but that wasn't the aim!' and lists something else!

[nuisance]

I don't see how an act like this has any particular class basis in itself. That relies entirely upon the ideological content of the act, which is by no-means self-evident, and- as Bricolage mentioned, received very limited media coverage to the extent that any of us are able to discern. Uniformity of class background does not in itself suggest a definite class character.
What does then? The fact that members of the working class were phyiscally acting material structure of the control used by the ruling social order to pacify them. This is act of class against class.
The media coverage is largely irrelevant.. Such acts are meant to be part of a permanent conflictality, not isolated events.


"Showing an alternative" through individual acts is what I was referring to. It presumes that an alternative conciousness is injected into the working class by adventuring individuals, rather than constructed through collective struggle.
No, this is just the stains that vanguardism has left upon leftist thought. What is this conciousness you are saying with be injected? Inspiration? For anarchists there is absolutely no alternative to personal actions, on the basis of the individual revolutionary subjectivity, not an action or a formal group. Again you bring up a false dichotomy between individual and collective action, why is it always one or the other with you guys?
For showing the alternative, this can mean practices in different living arrangement to different methods of rebellion. The idea isn't that people in a non-conflictual period will suddenly start again capital and the State, that would just be naive.



I mean, the big gripe was apparently that the company in question had a contract with local schools- which does make you wonder why the company, and the local authorities, were the target of choice- but did this actually have any involvement by pupils at those schools? You can't presume to insert yourself into a struggle and expect your actions to be authentically representative of any popular participation of that struggle. This is a tactic that, by its nature, excludes those whom it presumes to represent; more Alex Salmond than John Maclean, if you'll permit me a provincial analogy.
Why can't actions like these be compilmentary to the struggle? Plus, who cares about being 'authentically representative of any popular participation of that struggle'? This absolutely misses the point behind self-organisation and attempting to generalise revolt, you can't 'insert' yourself into capitalism, it is a totality and so these institutions are targets. How do you know if some pupils weren't involved? But if not, maybe parents were or people who may have kids which will go there in the future, who knows? We can always postulate, but we won't actually know, but neither does it fundamentally matter either.


Well, I didn't say that they did. I'm sure that the anarchists in question do other entirely useful things, I just wonder why they don't more of that and less of this, or even something of a similar nature, but with more substantially an effect.
Yeah, you're right, this action must of taken so much time out of there potenial nighttime rallying of the workers!

[Delenda Carthago]

How is this "worker struggle" excacrtly?

[Tim Finnegan]

What does then? The fact that members of the working class were phyiscally acting material structure of the control used by the ruling social order to pacify them. This is act of class against class.
I would challenge this, because the act did not emerge naturally from class struggle- between pupils and staff at the schools and the local authorities- but instead was imposed mechanically by those external to the actual conflict. It may have carried ideological content of a class strugglist nature, but that is not the same as saying that it is actually an act of class struggle in itself.


The media coverage is largely irrelevant.. Such acts are meant to be part of a permanent conflictality, not isolated events.
If the media coverage is irrelevant, then why has this act been defended, until this point, on largely propagandistic grounds? There seems to be some disagreement within the sympathetic camp...


No, this is just the stains that vanguardism has left upon leftist thought. What is this conciousness you are saying with be injected? Inspiration? For anarchists there is absolutely no alternative to personal actions, on the basis of the individual revolutionary subjectivity, not an action or a formal group. Again you bring up a false dichotomy between individual and collective action, why is it always one or the other with you guys?
I'm not arguing against individual action as such, I'm arguing against individual action on collective problems- that is, the substitution of individuals in place of the collective actually embroiled in the struggle in question- which is not a universal dichotomy, but one pertaining specifically to any given incarnation of struggle. Militants can not wage an emancipatory struggle on behalf of others.


For showing the alternative, this can mean practices in different living arrangement to different methods of rebellion. The idea isn't that people in a non-conflictual period will suddenly start again capital and the State, that would just be naive.
And do you really think that hoying a few bricks through a window and then telling nobody about it constitutes the demonstration of such an alternative?


Why can't actions like these be compilmentary to the struggle?
"Complimenting" a struggle is one thing, but unless there has actually been popular opposition to the actions in question, this really falls under the heading of "substitution". The battlefields of class struggle emerge naturally, they are not appointed by interventionist crusaders.


Plus, who cares about being 'authentically representative of any popular participation of that struggle'? This absolutely misses the point behind self-organisation and attempting to generalise revolt, you can't 'insert' yourself into capitalism, it is a totality and so these institutions are targets. How do you know if some pupils weren't involved? But if not, maybe parents were or people who may have kids which will go there in the future, who knows? We can always postulate, but we won't actually know, but neither does it fundamentally matter either.
Well, firstly, I'd be sceptical to that actual involvement of students or parents in a substantial manner, given the general disinclination of middle class, suburban-dwelling individuals of each demographic to engage in political Direct Action or property destruction. An assumption, granted, but not a baseless one.
Secondly, I'm again going to have to suggest that there is a difference between organic and mechanical expressions of class struggle, and that is the latter.


Yeah, you're right, this action must of taken so much time out of there potenial nighttime rallying of the workers!
Well, my real concern is the time they seem to spend sitting around writing self-aggrandising press-releases... http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/mischief.gif

[Ele'ill]

What you seem to be suggesting is that adventuring anarchists will somehow lead the progression of public discontent through direct action, which I'm pretty sceptical of. I don't think that there's any historical tendency for the working class to pick their targets based on the actions of a militant minority.

This is an inaccurate representation. Anarchists are most often working class folk. Anarchism isn't the only ideology behind direct actions. The actions will not lead by intention- they are not vanguard actions of any sort however the understanding of their actions when made public presents a clearer illustration and provides a platform, with some depth already established, for others to use when engaging capitalism or however you would prefer to word it. This is not a substitute for other methods of organizing or engagement- at all. It is however, a valid one, but I don't think you'd disagree with that as you've already stated.

There's a difference between people hearing about or knowing that people are angry and things are looking bleak and actually having space in their streets, neighborhoods, shopping areas occupied, burning dumpsters etc..Some call this spectacle and I say yup it is but that's the purpose. The anger and the hurt is your neighbors, it's in your city, not across the ocean some place far away- and I say this regarding all actions. It's important not to organize a demo in your basement where nobody hears you or is otherwise presented the option to give a fuck. It's nice marching with people you don't know and who may not know each other. It's an autonomous assembly. Members of the community uniting and acting because of a common concern. That's what moves people.



I can't see how it's actually going to influence people, though.

Seattle influenced me. Imagine that, something so complex with so much history and backstory let alone a security industry that many people can identify with- having cameras on their street corners etc..

[Tim Finnegan]

This is an inaccurate representation. Anarchists are most often working class folk. Anarchism isn't the only ideology behind direct actions. The actions will not lead by intention- they are not vanguard actions of any sort however the understanding of their actions when made public presents a clearer illustration and provides a platform, with some depth already established, for others to use when engaging capitalism or however you would prefer to word it. This is not a substitute for other methods of organizing or engagement- at all. It is however, a valid one, but I don't think you'd disagree with that as you've already stated.

There's a difference between people hearing about or knowing that people are angry and things are looking bleak and actually having space in their streets, neighborhoods, shopping areas occupied, burning dumpsters etc..Some call this spectacle and I say yup it is but that's the purpose. The anger and the hurt is your neighbors, it's in your city, not across the ocean some place far away- and I say this regarding all actions. It's important not to organize a demo in your basement where nobody hears you or is otherwise presented the option to give a fuck. It's nice marching with people you don't know and who may not know each other. It's an autonomous assembly. Members of the community uniting and acting because of a common concern. That's what moves people.
Well, again, I don't dispute direct action as a potentially valid course of action, but I tend to feel that this sort of direct action must proceed from a popular sentiment to be a meaningful expression of class struggle, which I don't think that this was. This was't the eruption of popular discontent, or even- unless Nottinghammers are all that much more concerned about CCTV than most Brits- the head of a general lower-level discontent, but a private discontent expressed in a low-key manner, neither of which I would imagine are likely to produce substantial results.


Seattle influenced me. Imagine that, something so complex with so much history and backstory let alone a security industry that many people can identify with- having cameras on their street corners etc..But Seattle involved mass displays of popular discontent, while this was a very small-scale with an obscurely expressed- and poorly reasoned, if I'm frank- set of justifications. That's a rather more crucial distinction than complexity of motivation.

(Plus, there's the simple fact that, objectively, CCTV cameras really aren't that big a deal. They've a populist talking point- you'll here both left and right whinging about them- and so one which a lot of far-leftists have latched onto in the belief that is therefore a popular concern, apparently not having joined the dots together and figured out that the very reason it is permitted to be so publically discussed is because its a piddling surface-issue that doesn't actually constitute a threat to the establishment. That all makes the self-lionising rhetoric supplied in defence of an action which, in itself, was probably no more radical than the UK Uncut occupations, a bit wearisome.)

[Ele'ill]

Well, again, I don't dispute direct action as a potentially valid course of action, but I tend to feel that this sort of direct action must proceed from a popular sentiment to be a meaningful expression of class struggle, which I don't think that this was. This was't the eruption of popular discontent, or even- unless Nottinghammers are all that much more concerned about CCTV than most Brits- the head of a general lower-level discontent, but a private discontent expressed in a low-key manner, neither of which I would imagine are likely to produce substantial results.

So small groups within a community, if isolated or even if not, are paralyzed without 'popular consent' to engage in autonomous actions against invasive elements within their neighborhoods? This is like waiting for a vanguard to give you permission to defend yourself.


But Seattle involved mass displays of popular discontent, while this was a very small-scale with an obscurely expressed- and poorly reasoned, if I'm frank- set of justifications. That's a rather more crucial distinction than complexity of motivation.

Then your issue is not with 'this type of direct action' but with the specifics surrounding this particular event- not even with the act of property destruction.

[Tim Finnegan]

So small groups within a community, if isolated or even if not, are paralyzed without 'popular consent' to engage in autonomous actions against invasive elements within their neighborhoods? This is like waiting for a vanguard to give you permission to defend yourself.
I'm not demanding explicit popular consent, but rather suggesting that direct action must express popular sentiments, even if it it expresses their more radical fringes. If it merely expresses the particular grudges of a minority of militants, then, even if it can be considered legitimate or even productive in itself, it can't be considered an authentic expression of class struggle, and when the act lacks significant political or economic impact, as in this case, that's something that it really needs. Otherwise it's just graffiti taken a few steps further.


Then your issue is not with 'this type of direct action' but with the specifics surrounding this particular event- not even with the act of property destruction.
I don't think that it's really possible to separate the mechanical actions involved from the context; when I say "type", I don't simply mean bricks-through-windows, but this act as a part of class struggle. As I said, property destruction is not something I'm at all concerned about in and of itself.

[Eastside Revolt]

How is this "worker struggle" exactly?

I generally try to post things in "worker struggles" that fit outside the box of what "the left" considers to be "worker struggles", because I am sick of the narrow definition of what a worker is and what their struggles are. Most workers don't have unions, and their struggles extend far beyond the workplace!