"The Fighting Pest"

[Enragé]

[note: 'The Fighting Pest' is the description the Anti-Authoritarian Movement uses for the always-rioting]

This thread is not about the KKE. I think its awful what they did.

On the other hand, it is rather obvious that the always-rioting arent being very helpful either. It doesnt really help strategically (because it alienates some people, and scares off others even though they might agree with you because they dont want to be caught in the cross-fire/are not that fit/well trained), and neither does it help tactically (because it brings in the cops when you might just wanna prepare some stuff first, or choose the moment the cops come in so you have your forces in place to disarm then/whatever, etc etc).

The question then becomes, how to deal with this? Or, deal with this at all? If we are not to deal with this, then maybe it is not so obvious the always-rioting are that unhelpful. Then the question becomes, what good are they doing? (i can think of a few reasons, but at least regarding the situation in greece those reasons are small compared to the negative aspects).

I am all for a diversity of tactics in building movements. But i think at some point tactics can cancel eachother out, become very counter-productive. Our opponents are very organised, they can make intricate battleplans, set up ambushes, create blindspots, surround us, cut our marches in half, lure us in somewhere. If we are to win, tactically, it isnt very useful to have 20 idiots running around torching every 'symbol of capitalism' they can find, and attacking the police on sight (when it might be smarter to wait, or to simply walk around them, etc etc), ruining our battleplan. I think it is this reason why the KKE did what they did, at least if i am perhaps somewhat naively trusting toward their central committee and its revolutionary aspirations. In any case, it is probably why many revolutionaries within the KKE/PAME did what they did.

Or am I saying something completely stupid here?

Please, discuss.

[Thirsty Crow]

It's absolutely obvious that what you call "the fighting pest" is a problem when it functions as the only tactic employed in what is perceived as fighting the common enemy - capital and its political managers. In fact, I think that it ceases to be even a tactic when it is not embedded in a broader strategy, with first and foremost element being organizing the working class, be it workplace organizing, propaganda and agitation or anything. It's not a tactic but obviously a sort of a fetish, impotent at that and risking to alienate and separate the group.

I don't think you're saying something stupid, not at all, and I do think that such problems need to be dealt with, but the specifics of how to do so are not easy to sketch out. But as a starting point, I think that the initiative needs to come out of the broad anti-authoritarian millieu, and in the case of Greece, also from all of the political organizations which stand outside of the KKE/PAME, since I'm afraid that these orgs (KKE) could easily fall into the trap of total exclusion and repression, evident from the rhetoric and overall ideological stance towards anarchists in general.

[PhoenixAsh]

The point is that the revolutionary left has split in to political organisations and factions who organise around a central theme or central ideology which basically excludes others as valid opinions.

This fragmentarisation into, more often than not, vanguard parties does not help to create a strong unified movement which discusses and debates about tactics and strategies outside of their own political family and party.

Not only does this mean that we will never beable to create a strong unified movement, but it also means that parties have a tendency to dismiss each others tactics, views on action and strategy and be very dismissive of them.

That means there will never be a movement that tries to incorporate the different tactics and the different positions and actively coordiantes between groups on the basis of their prefered method of DA or, in some cases, peaceful flag waving.

That is IMO counter productive and will lead to groups monopolising demonstrations, blockig others from passage or participation and even going so far as collaborating with cops and other burgeoise institutions in ordr to maintain superiority or gain the political upper hand.

Like we have seen in Greece.

This then means that groups operate on an induvidual basis.

And that wether or not you agree with their methods creates their own subjective interpretation and evaluation of these methods as "usefull" or "unproductive" because they take place outside a framework of coordination and therefore are bound to be random in the context of the general picture.


As to the tactic of insurrectionism and the use of indiscriminate symbolic violence....I willl have to go into that later. Something came up

[Die Neue Zeit]

I am all for a diversity of tactics in building movements. But i think at some point tactics can cancel eachother out, become very counter-productive.

I'm against diversity of tactics. United action is necessary. Now, perhaps a supermajority should be required instead of 50%+1, so long as that supermajority isn't excessive to the point of near-consensus. If the KKE engaged in civil disobedience around Parliament and proposed this honestly as united action, I'm sure lots of other groups would have joined in. At that point, that supermajority would be more than enough to send a F***-Off message to the hooligans.

The question is: What if the hooligans are much more heavily armed than the united civil disobedience participants and still try to push their own way through?

[PhoenixAsh]

Well...I said I would come back to the question of violence.


Personally I do not think burning or destroying banks, cars, shops, factories or even ministeries, police stations etc will be very effective in bringing about the ultimate goal of revolution or help mobilizing the proletarian class...on their own.

As I have stated earlier in the KKE/PAME debates there is a huge difference between organising workers, helping to radicalise them and the actions that are taken on the streets.

Those organisation and radicalisation attempts are fundamental to reach class consciousness which will eventually form the true basis of any revolutionary momevement that has any hopes of reaching a permanent overthrow of capitalism. So far I agree with people like FSE and to some extend with the KKE.

The point where we seem to part ways is that I think that in the meantime the only actions on the streets should be peaceful and organized major events.

I said that I do not feel bruning and destruction will bring about unionisation or even revolution. This does not mean that they do not serve a valid purpose or have no value in the class struggles or in the revolutionary momevent.

Those acts serve to disrupt economic life for the burgeoisie, they disrupt the flow of money and they destroy assets and require a huge stream of assets to be redirected into the reconstruction of the processes and assets. Not only that but they will require more protection which draws away from the mobilisation effect of the burgeoisie. It also serves to show that people are not powerless. That the institutions and objects are not some untoucheable idol of money and power.

As for attacking and fighting cops. Yes, sometimes that seems to be the prupose rather than serve the purpose....and that can lead to drawing away the focus of what is actually the intended or higher priority target. But cops are assets of the burgeosie too. And hurting them, fighting them serves a purpose. The more cops will be pressured, the more cops are put in dangerous situations every day the more and more they will be put on the defensive, the more and more they will have to ask themselves if what they is doing is worth the crap pay and the threat to their well being.

We have seen cops in Egypt surrender whole units because they simply could not deal with the amount of agression leveled against them. This works too on a daily basis. Cops should be afraid to walk the streets. They should be afraid when they leave for their jobs. They should live in constant fear.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm against diversity of tactics. United action is necessary. Now, perhaps a supermajority should be required instead of 50%+1, so long as that supermajority isn't excessive to the point of near-consensus. If the KKE engaged in civil disobedience around Parliament and proposed this honestly as united action, I'm sure lots of other groups would have joined in. At that point, that supermajority would be more than enough to send a F***-Off message to the hooligans.

The question is: What if the hooligans are much more heavily armed than the united civil disobedience participants and still try to push their own way through?
DNZ, what exactly do you have in mind by the united tactic of civil disobedience?

[Die Neue Zeit]

DNZ, what exactly do you have in mind by the united tactic of civil disobedience?

For example, the KKE should have called off its own protests when it wanted, not when the cops showed up. Peaceful refusal to disperse is an act of civil disobedience.

Another act is bringing in microphones even without permits, so that we don't have the slow problem of "People's Mics."

Yet another act, similar to what the anarchists planned but in so many ways different, is Occupy Parliament.

[Enragé]

Why is there so little discussion on this point? Is it because it yields no possibility for sectarian bullshit (because an anarchist-y person comes up with the question if always-rioting might not be quite problematic) or is it because it asks for a strategy to be developed in relation to the always-rioting and how to deal with this in the future instead of each side being able to remain stuck in their own strategy saying 'ours is best because..'?

In my mind it is the 'fighting pest'-problem which lead to what the KKE did, or at least, if there wasnt the 'fighting pest'-problem the KKE wouldnt have done what it did so quickly and have not had so much legitimacy in doing it.

So then, outside of blocking them and beating the crap out of them, how to deal with the always-rioting?

@DNZ my intent here is not to discuss the diversity of tactics, but to discuss HOW we can deal with people using certain tactics in situations when they are not useful. Because whether you are for or against diversity of tactics, there always is a diversity of tactics. Whether you are for or against burning down a bank, it has been shown that people burning down banks or smashing windows always come to play a role (positive or negative) during periods of heightened class struggle and/or street actions.

@20/20 you outline the positive aspects of the always-rioting very well. Yet, i think you can also agree that in some circumstances what they do is counter-productive. In those circumstances, how to deal with them? Or do you think what they do is always good?

[PhoenixAsh]

first± I haven´t slept for 48 hours so I am trying to be as coherent as possible, foregive me if things may seem a bit vague or unclear. I am not trying to evade or obfuscate...I am just exhausted....so If I screw up here then it is that.


Well my position is diversity of tactics is required. Coordination is preferable.

I can cartainly understand and even accept the criticism some groups have given about insurrectionism in the past...and I am refering to the Greek situation now...may have been timed unwisely or may have even been counter productive.

I am a huge fan of mutual coordination with a flexible and pro-active attitude. Meaning that groups have to decide and coordinate amongst each other...before, during and after events. This requires mutual trust and openness. Something which is sadly absent in Greece.

And I agree this can be somewhat of a hassle with some of the anarchist groups since some of them are operating on loose participation and do not really have a leadership structure....but it gets progressively worse and more uncooperative when the trust is not there.

I think insurrectionism serves a purpose and should serve a purpose within a broader movement...on almost every occasion. When and how and where it should take place is something which should and could be coordinated before hand.

And I think there should be a flexible and mutual aid oriented approach. Which means if you agreed before hand that there would be a peaceful strike,...but it turns out parliament is unprotected...there should be room for a reorientation of the agreement. But it also means parties should refrain from cooperating with cops or attacking each other.

I outlined before somewhere what I thought the position of every group should be in any circumstance:

no collaboration with the bourgeoisie in any shape or form
mutual protection (active or passive)
no interference (no blocking)
no enforeced tactics
etc.

These basic points should lead to clarity and flexibility....and also to the attitude that changes on the ground could change tactics.

[A Marxist Historian]

first± I haven´t slept for 48 hours so I am trying to be as coherent as possible, foregive me if things may seem a bit vague or unclear. I am not trying to evade or obfuscate...I am just exhausted....so If I screw up here then it is that.


Well my position is diversity of tactics is required. Coordination is preferable.

I can cartainly understand and even accept the criticism some groups have given about insurrectionism in the past...and I am refering to the Greek situation now...may have been timed unwisely or may have even been counter productive.

I am a huge fan of mutual coordination with a flexible and pro-active attitude. Meaning that groups have to decide and coordinate amongst each other...before, during and after events. This requires mutual trust and openness. Something which is sadly absent in Greece.

And I agree this can be somewhat of a hassle with some of the anarchist groups since some of them are operating on loose participation and do not really have a leadership structure....but it gets progressively worse and more uncooperative when the trust is not there.

I think insurrectionism serves a purpose and should serve a purpose within a broader movement...on almost every occasion. When and how and where it should take place is something which should and could be coordinated before hand.

And I think there should be a flexible and mutual aid oriented approach. Which means if you agreed before hand that there would be a peaceful strike,...but it turns out parliament is unprotected...there should be room for a reorientation of the agreement. But it also means parties should refrain from cooperating with cops or attacking each other.

I outlined before somewhere what I thought the position of every group should be in any circumstance:

no collaboration with the bourgeoisie in any shape or form
mutual protection (active or passive)
no interference (no blocking)
no enforeced tactics
etc.

These basic points should lead to clarity and flexibility....and also to the attitude that changes on the ground could change tactics.

When the feces hits the fan and you are in a revolutionary situation, diversity of tactics has to be prevented at all costs. What needs to be done needs to be decided democratically, but then that has to be what is done.

Democratic centralism!

But this assumes that everyone involved is a revolutionary, not a counterrevolutionary. The KKE has clearly demonstrated, for the nth time, that it is counterrevolutionary not revolutionary.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Why is there so little discussion on this point? Is it because it yields no possibility for sectarian bullshit (because an anarchist-y person comes up with the question if always-rioting might not be quite problematic) or is it because it asks for a strategy to be developed in relation to the always-rioting and how to deal with this in the future instead of each side being able to remain stuck in their own strategy saying 'ours is best because..'?

In my mind it is the 'fighting pest'-problem which lead to what the KKE did, or at least, if there wasnt the 'fighting pest'-problem the KKE wouldnt have done what it did so quickly and have not had so much legitimacy in doing it.

So then, outside of blocking them and beating the crap out of them, how to deal with the always-rioting?

@DNZ my intent here is not to discuss the diversity of tactics, but to discuss HOW we can deal with people using certain tactics in situations when they are not useful. Because whether you are for or against diversity of tactics, there always is a diversity of tactics. Whether you are for or against burning down a bank, it has been shown that people burning down banks or smashing windows always come to play a role (positive or negative) during periods of heightened class struggle and/or street actions.

@20/20 you outline the positive aspects of the always-rioting very well. Yet, i think you can also agree that in some circumstances what they do is counter-productive. In those circumstances, how to deal with them? Or do you think what they do is always good?

Well, "trashing" as we used to call it back in the day, whether in England, Greece, New York City, Oakland or anywhere else, is always counterproductive. But if that's what the masses want to do, then one should try to discourage the idea, but not prevent it physically, as in that case, like the KKE, you're on the wrong side of the class line.

If it's *not* what the masses of people on the street want to have happen, then exercising some revolutionary discipline will be necessary. That's one of the reasons, the least important in fact, why anarchist methods of organization don't work and you have to have an organized political party leading the movement to succeed.

-M.H.-