Occupy Oakland Blocks Port of Oakland!

[ВАЛТЕР]

http://twitter.com/#!/RT_com

This is just in...:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[ВАЛТЕР]

http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution

Live stream

[Kitty_Paine]

God, I wish I lived over there... what a fun thing to do on a wednesday night. I'd like to add a little red to that crowd. I hope it keeps growing.

[Tablo]

Fuck, I didn't think it would get this big and militant! :ohmy:

[Os Cangaceiros]

Someone on Twitter estimated the crowd to be around 10,000 which seems like a pretty good turnout. I have no idea if that's true, though. My internet connection/bandwidth is terrible so I can't really stream content.

[xub3rn00dlex]

This makes me so happy, solidarity comrades! Stay safe, stay resilient!

[ВАЛТЕР]

People are *****ing on fb about it ruining "the little guy"

assclowns

http://www.facebook.com/RTnews

[Luís Henrique]

Seems situation is really changing. Hope these movements can get more radical and unified.

I think we should prepare to see things we never imagined happening quite soon. Class struggle is unchained...

Luís Henrique

[Susurrus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/us/occupy-oakland-protesters-set-sights-on-closing-port.html

[IndependentCitizen]

Fuck, I didn't think it would get this big and militant! :ohmy:
I don't think anyone did, I dismissed OWS as a middle-class liberal movement, but it's becoming apparent that I was entirely wrong.

[The Douche]

I don't think anyone did, I dismissed OWS as a middle-class liberal movement, but it's becoming apparent that I was entirely wrong.

Its still pretty liberal, haven't you seen the denounciations of "violence" against property, or the videos of other protestors doing everything possible, including inflicting violence on protestors to prevent damage from happening to buildings like banks or whole foods?


A man gets shot in the head and sent to the hospital, but there are still people in the movement to tell us not to do something as insignificant as damage property.

Occupation spokespeople have even made statements that "anarchists are not part of our protest". The laughable part, I bet most of the people seeking out violence do not identify as anarchists, they're probably just pissed of kids from Oakland, who really dig the way anarchists are down to fuck up the shit that fucks up their lives.

[Eleftherios]

Its still pretty liberal, haven't you seen the denounciations of "violence" against property, or the videos of other protestors doing everything possible, including inflicting violence on protestors to prevent damage from happening to buildings like banks or whole foods?


A man gets shot in the head and sent to the hospital, but there are still people in the movement to tell us not to do something as insignificant as damage property.

Occupation spokespeople have even made statements that "anarchists are not part of our protest". The laughable part, I bet most of the people seeking out violence do not identify as anarchists, they're probably just pissed of kids from Oakland, who really dig the way anarchists are down to fuck up the shit that fucks up their lives.

Yeah, that's a great attitude. Smash everything in sight, smash the bank windows, the small shops, rich peoples' homes, and that will definitely get things accomplished. Oh yeah, and denounce all those who call for non-violence as "liberal".

Yeah, right. Doing something "as petty as damage property" will do more to destroy the movement than anything the police or city authorities can do. Besides being entirely useless, it brings horrible publicity to the movement. You might be fine with that, but if you actually want at least a good part of the population to support this movement, then that is the wrong move. The media has already gone to great lengths to vilify this movement, but a good section of the population still sympathizes with the movement. If they start seeing any sort of serious property damage, that support will quickly turn into fear. But I guess if your completely okay with alienating all but a tiny fraction of the population, then go ahead and smash shop windows and ATMs, whole foods (seriously, whole foods? why is that a good idea?)


Look, I'm no pacifist, and I do believe that violence has it's place in any revolution, but at this point (and at any point really) this petty violence is not only useless, but counter-productive. Fighting cops is fine, because they are the instigators, but once ordinary people associate the average protester with these fringe mobs that resort to petty violence and terrorism to achieve their means, you will turn friends into enemies.

[Ele'ill]

Of course solidarity to those who wished to use property destruction as a tactic and I can only speak for the Portland demo but I'd say that property destruction wouldn't have made sense from a tactical perspective. Yeah it would have been done and it would have worked out and everything but it would have ruined some key aspects of solidarity. The tactic is intimidating and it does push a lot of people away. What I saw yesterday was a lot of liberal non-radicals stepping over to radicals. I linked arms and pushed forward with people who I'm pretty sure were not radicals. We actually had a hella ton of people push through a cop-motorcycle blockade to take the bridges (both bridges, both times). Non-radicals with their kids. This is sort of about movement building and I don't think property destruction would have been tactically appropriate. What I saw yesterday was more militant than that and certainly a greater threat to the ruling class than activation of insurance policies and cliche divide between tactical thought processes.

[Luís Henrique]

Fuck, I didn't think it would get this big and militant!I don't think anyone did, I dismissed OWS as a middle-class liberal movement, but it's becoming apparent that I was entirely wrong.

This is a global phenomenon; the actions in the US are not really different from those in Europe or the Middle East.

Something to think about:


Bourgeois revolutions, like those of the eighteenth century, storm more swiftly from success to success, their dramatic effects outdo each other, men and things seem set in sparkling diamonds, ecstasy is the order of the day – but they are short-lived, soon they have reached their zenith, and a long Katzenjammer takes hold of society before it learns to assimilate the results of its storm-and-stress period soberly. On the other hand, proletarian revolutions, like those of the nineteenth century, constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossalness of their own goals – until a situation is created which makes all turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves call out:
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!Luís Henrique

[X5N]

Anarchist Territory of Oakland, anyone? :D

This is so awesome. I wish I could be there.

[agnixie]

Anarchist Territory of Oakland, anyone? :D

This is so awesome. I wish I could be there.

Yeah they're calling it the oakland commune, and not because of the hippie crap :D

[aty]

Someone on Twitter estimated the crowd to be around 10,000 which seems like a pretty good turnout. I have no idea if that's true, though. My internet connection/bandwidth is terrible so I can't really stream content.
There was much more than 10000 closer to 100 000. I sat and watched helicopter-feed of the marches down to the port and the one that left at 4pm had about 15000+ alone. The other march that left at 5pm is impossible to say how many because it was very long, but easily 50000:

This is the 5pm march and you cant see the end or the begining: http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/raw-video-newschopper-2-footage-of-huge-crowd/vD4mx/

[The Douche]

Yeah, that's a great attitude. Smash everything in sight, smash the bank windows, the small shops, rich peoples' homes, and that will definitely get things accomplished. Oh yeah, and denounce all those who call for non-violence as "liberal".

Yeah, right. Doing something "as petty as damage property" will do more to destroy the movement than anything the police or city authorities can do. Besides being entirely useless, it brings horrible publicity to the movement. You might be fine with that, but if you actually want at least a good part of the population to support this movement, then that is the wrong move. The media has already gone to great lengths to vilify this movement, but a good section of the population still sympathizes with the movement. If they start seeing any sort of serious property damage, that support will quickly turn into fear. But I guess if your completely okay with alienating all but a tiny fraction of the population, then go ahead and smash shop windows and ATMs, whole foods (seriously, whole foods? why is that a good idea?)


Look, I'm no pacifist, and I do believe that violence has it's place in any revolution, but at this point (and at any point really) this petty violence is not only useless, but counter-productive. Fighting cops is fine, because they are the instigators, but once ordinary people associate the average protester with these fringe mobs that resort to petty violence and terrorism to achieve their means, you will turn friends into enemies.

Why is it a good idea to smash whole foods? Cause they threatened to fire any employee who failed to show up for work (i.e. participate in the general strike), or I dunno, cause its a fucking capitalist institution.

I give absolutely zero fucks if you agree with property damage or not, but I will be the one deciding to engage in it. And if you get in my way, and physically lay your hands on me to defend private property than I'm probably going to muscle you out of the way.



You sound like the kind of person who tries to grab protestors and hand them over to the cops for breaking windows.

[tir1944]

Cause they threatened to fire any employee who failed to show up for work (i.e. participate in the general strike), or I dunno, cause its a fucking capitalist institution.Your school is also a "capitalist institution".



I give absolutely zero fucks if you agree with property damage or not, but I will be the one deciding to engage in it.Revolutionary thinking at its best.
It'd be good if your burning down buildings endangered you only,however it puts many many other people at danger too,not to mention the bad PR some other parts of the revolutionary Left might get because of your actions.
But ok,maybe this "i give absolutely zero fucks" attitude is what's really needed today...

[WeAreReborn]

Your school is also a "capitalist institution".
What's your point?


Revolutionary thinking at its best.
It'd be good if your burning down buildings endangered you only,however it puts many many other people at danger too,not to mention the bad PR some other parts of the revolutionary Left might get because of your actions.
But ok,maybe "i give absolutely zero fucks" attitude is what's needed today...
Are you seriously foolish enough to think that the reason the revolutionary left gets bad PR is because of property damage? Even when they are peaceful they get crap. It is such a ridiculous argument that is so detached from reality. As if the media actually will report favorably. So if you do not wish to engage in property damage yourself, that's fine. But don't get in the way of others who wish to do so.

[tir1944]

What's your point? That vandalism isn't justified by you (rhetorically speaking) saying that it's a "capitalist institution" (lol) that you're smashing the windows of.


Are you seriously foolish enough to think that the reason the revolutionary left gets bad PR is because of property damage? I'm not foolish,i heard this from many "ordinary" working people who are not happy about that kinds of things happening.After all,it's the employees of that company who'll most likely foot the bill.



It is such a ridiculous argument that is so detached from reality.Ok,maybe the American working class in general supports such behaviour.


So if you do not wish to engage in property damage yourself, that's fine. But don't get in the way of others who wish to do so. I wouldn't be happy if someone torched my school.Maybe you would,i don't know....in that case it's all fine and well.

[xub3rn00dlex]

I'm not foolish,i heard this from many "ordinary" working people who are not happy about that kinds of things happening.After all,it's the employees of that company who'll most likely foot the bill.

It's insurance companies that foot the bill for property damage.



I wouldn't be happy if someone torched my school.Maybe you would,i don't know....in that case it's all fine and well.

Nobody is talking about torching schools ffs...

[WeAreReborn]

That vandalism isn't justified by you (rhetorically speaking) saying that it's a "capitalist institution" (lol) that you're smashing the windows of.
I understand you are trying to argue semantics, but there is a clear difference between a company and a school.


I'm not foolish,i heard this from many "ordinary" working people who are not happy about that kinds of things happening.After all,it's the employees of that company who'll most likely foot the bill. Yeah I have heard them criticizing it as well. They would also criticize any violence or actual resistance to authority that is necessary for revolution. However, property damage raises the militancy of the movement. Which do you think is more dangerous to the ruling class; a bunch of liberals who refuse to engage in vandalism because they don't want to damage property or those who engage in vandalism to try and send a message of real class struggle?

[tir1944]

It's insurance companies that foot the bill for property damage.
Good then,but there might be some "behind the scenes" deals that most people never heard about...that certainly wouldn't surprise me.


Nobody is talking about torching schools ffs...
The torching of what exactly are we talking about then?
Or is just an issue of smashing windows?
Because everyone knows that in such riots everything goes exactly as previously meticulously planned,innit?

[WeAreReborn]

Good then,but there might be some "behind the scenes" deals that most people never heard about...that certainly wouldn't surprise me.
What are you referring to?



The torching of what exactly are we talking about then?
Or is just an issue of smashing windows?
Because everyone knows that in such riots everything goes exactly as previously meticulously planned,innit?
No one even brought up the term "torching". But there is a difference between private property and public.

[tir1944]

I understand you are trying to argue semantics, but there is a clear difference between a company and a school. A school can also be a "company",you unerstand that right?
Also you can't attack the CEOs or whatever in their big and guarded buildings,you can only attack some poor working class clerks and their offices.
Anyway,i wouldn't like my favorite cafe torched either.



They would also criticize any violence or actual resistance to authority that is necessary for revolution.There's difference between necessary and unnecessary and pointless violence though.


However, property damage raises the militancy of the movement. Maybe,but it hardly raises the movement.


Which do you think is more dangerous to the ruling class; a bunch of liberals who refuse to engage in vandalism because they don't want to damage property or those who engage in vandalism to try and send a message of real class struggle? None of them IMO,only a party/movement with the support of the wide working masses does.

[xub3rn00dlex]

Good then,but there might be some "behind the scenes" deals that most people never heard about...that certainly wouldn't surprise me.

I don't see where you're going with this?



The torching of what exactly are we talking about then?
Or is just an issue of smashing windows?
Because everyone knows that in such riots everything goes exactly as previously meticulously planned,innit?

How about just property damage of businesses ( which is stuff like whole foods, banks, etc. ) I seriously doubt the anarchist movement wants to torch schools, because you and I both know what kind of message that would send to the non-radical masses.

[tir1944]

What are you referring to?
The "I'll cut your salary by 20% to pay for these broken windows,complain about itand you can get the fuck out of my company" "style of dealings".Hardly improbable IMO.


But there is a difference between private property and public.
Yes,my favorite cafe is privately owned property however i still like it and wouldn't want someone to torch/smash it just because it seemed "fun".

[xub3rn00dlex]

The "I'll cut your salary by 20% to pay for these broken windows,complain about itand you can get the fuck out of my company" "style of dealings".Hardly improbable IMO.

These are illegal here in the states. You seem to have a real hard time understanding insurance.



Yes,my favorite cafe is privately owned property however i still like it and wouldn't want someone to torch/smash it just because it seemed "fun".

Just because you don't want someone to torch/damage it doesn't mean other radicals who are trying to raise consciousness and send a signal feel the same. You can want/not want to do something, which is different than engaging/preventing others from doing it. ( Think KKE/PAME)

[The Douche]

Your school is also a "capitalist institution".

Revolutionary thinking at its best.
It'd be good if your burning down buildings endangered you only,however it puts many many other people at danger too,not to mention the bad PR some other parts of the revolutionary Left might get because of your actions.
But ok,maybe this "i give absolutely zero fucks" attitude is what's really needed today...

I don't have a school? What do you mean?


1) Nobody is talking about buring buildings, we're talking about spray paint and broken windows.

Bad PR? Fuck off. Where do revolutionaries have "good PR"?:laugh:



You can protest however you want, but you peace police types don't agree, you always want control over everything.

[WeAreReborn]

Yes,my favorite cafe is privately owned property however i still like it and wouldn't want someone to torch/smash it just because it seemed "fun".
Oh sorry. I didn't realize that your interest in a cafe takes precedence over class struggle.

[Broletariat]

For tir

http://www.ucpanews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/8.html

[tir1944]

Well...good luck with your revolution.
:)

[Comrade-Z]

For the last few years I've developed the growing suspicion that the anarchist movement should just "go on strike" and tactically (but not morally) abstain from the "smashy smashy" in other people's reformist campaigns (OWS included).

Anarchists' message should be: "You criticize us for giving your protests some deterrent power in our confrontations with the 1%/ruling class/whatever you want to call them. Very well...for the foreseeable future, until we change our mind, we will tactically abstain from such actions in your reformist campaigns. We are not making a moral judgment about property damage. We are not saying that property damage is wrong. We are saying that we'd like to see what the liberals are able to accomplish without the backing of our heavy artillery."

The TYT piece on the smashy-smashy in Oakland particularly irritated me.
http://youtu.be/z6Y0rRWO1ak

So if these liberals are not going to understand these tactics, let us go on strike and refrain from them for the time being and see what they accomplish, all the while vocally criticizing their polyannish non-violent fantasies and making the intellectual case for property damage as a means of radicalizing and strengthening protests.

Edit: If anarchists are going to go smashy-smashy, I propose that they use the "Nixon bloc" rather than the "black bloc." The "Nixon bloc" would involve people dressing in a standardized business suits with identical Nixon masks. Might fuck with people's heads a little bit more than the "black bloc," which is very easy to pigeonhole as hooligan youth.

[RedHal]

lol you guys are not that important to "go on strike". Smashy Smashy accomplishes nothing but gives the cops an easier excuse to attack protesters. It just feeds the liberal's suspicions of the black bloc being nothing but provocateurs.

But hey, who cares what the majority of OWS thinks, as long as it gets praise from the tiny anarchists circle and "it's hella fun".:rolleyes:

[A Marxist Historian]

I understand you are trying to argue semantics, but there is a clear difference between a company and a school.

Yeah I have heard them criticizing it as well. They would also criticize any violence or actual resistance to authority that is necessary for revolution. However, property damage raises the militancy of the movement. Which do you think is more dangerous to the ruling class; a bunch of liberals who refuse to engage in vandalism because they don't want to damage property or those who engage in vandalism to try and send a message of real class struggle?

It does no such thing, it's just a diversion.

I mean, really, Whole Foods is obnoxious, but if you think throwing paint on their windows is gonna advance the class struggle, you are dreaming.

Property damage is useful when it advances the movement. Like, if the longshoremen go on strike, they might find it convenient at some point to rearrange the docks a little, to keep ships from docking until the longshoremen want them to.

Petty window-smashing is just a publicity stunt, and bad publicity at that. It doesn't send a message of class struggle but of, at best, individual Robin Hoodism. Petty as in petty bourgeois.

But, OTOH, those who engage in this sort of foolishness are part of the movement and should be defended from the state. Something the liberals are, to say the least, not too clear on.

I think it's just fine that the "peace police" wrestled the guy trying to mess up the Whole Foods window to the ground. Now, if they turned him over to the cops, that would be another matter. And there are many such who would.

The hundred or so folk, not all of them anarchists, busted last night and this morning need to be defended, let's have no talk of "that was unauthorized so screw them."

They are far from the only folk involved in OWS doing stupid things, and not the worst.

-M.H.-

[redwog]

The question of violence is a political one, not an issue of personal revolutionary expression.

In a fledgling movement, like OWS, all self-conscious revolutionaries are leaders, whether they like it or not. By mere fact of their historical knowledge, their grasp of radical theories, or their experience of organisation, revolutionaries act in movements with a different perspective to spontaneous participants.

All leaders, whether desiring a leadership role or not; and this is the bit Anarchists won't like, have a collective responsibility to lead in a manner that is collectively democratic. It does so by aiding in the delivery of the will of the mass/multitude through appropriate actions that both aid the aspirations tactically, and help broaden the understanding politically (hence developing consciousness).

The peace police phenomenon is a feature of not truly understanding the state. It is seemingly easy for many (not most) to decide that capitalism is a (if not the) problem; but understanding the role of the state as inherently tied to the system and its interests is more difficult. This is particularly the case when most of the population's experience of the state is paradoxical.

On the one hand most people have at some time or another experienced the oppression of the state in obvious ways - petty crimes; traffic infringements; taxation issues; judicial unfairness etc. On the other hand, most people experience some benevolence (particularly baby boomers) of a state that spent half of the last century expanding social spending in the wake of the Great Depression and wage productivity deals. It is this latter experiences that is to blame for the latent desire in most progressive movements to call on the state to behave in a social democratic manner. It is also this experience that sees the state as a politically neutral organ; that in the right hands or making better, more compassionate decisions would remedy all social ills. Indeed a feature of the OWS stuff has been the notion that the state is a victim of corporate power or control.

So where does this lead us in the question of violence?

It is most easily dealt with by leading appropriately. Rather than the propaganda of the deed, which is an individualist outburst, raising the question of the state's function in discussion and by publishing appropriate materials, leaders can begin to broaden conciousness. This should be done by accepting people's desire for peace. [I mean most of them are clearly not ready for anything else anyway]

If it seems that the multitude is at conciousness level that the principled adherence to peace is rejected, only then, should their be any thought given to behaving differently.

[redwog]

The question of violence is a political one, not an issue of personal revolutionary expression.

In a fledgling movement, like OWS, all self-conscious revolutionaries are leaders, whether they like it or not. By mere fact of their historical knowledge, their grasp of radical theories, or their experience of organisation, revolutionaries act in movements with a different perspective to spontaneous participants.

All leaders, whether desiring a leadership role or not; and this is the bit Anarchists won't like, have a collective responsibility to lead in a manner that is collectively democratic. It does so by aiding in the delivery of the will of the mass/multitude through appropriate actions that both aid the aspirations tactically, and help broaden the understanding politically (hence developing consciousness).

The peace police phenomenon is a feature of not truly understanding the state. It is seemingly easy for many (not most) to decide that capitalism is a (if not the) problem; but understanding the role of the state as inherently tied to the system and its interests is more difficult. This is particularly the case when most of the population's experience of the state is paradoxical.

On the one hand most people have at some time or another experienced the oppression of the state in obvious ways - petty crimes; traffic infringements; taxation issues; judicial unfairness etc. On the other hand, most people experience some benevolence (particularly baby boomers) of a state that spent half of the last century expanding social spending in the wake of the Great Depression and wage productivity deals. It is this latter experiences that is to blame for the latent desire in most progressive movements to call on the state to behave in a social democratic manner. It is also this experience that sees the state as a politically neutral organ; that in the right hands or making better, more compassionate decisions would remedy all social ills. Indeed a feature of the OWS stuff has been the notion that the state is a victim of corporate power or control.

So where does this lead us in the question of violence?

It is most easily dealt with by leading appropriately. Rather than the propaganda of the deed, which is an individualist outburst, raising the question of the state's function in discussion and by publishing appropriate materials, leaders can begin to broaden conciousness. This should be done by accepting people's desire for peace. [I mean most of them are clearly not ready for anything else anyway]

If it seems that the multitude is at conciousness level that the principled adherence to peace is rejected, only then, should their be any thought given to behaving differently.

[Fawkes]

Smashy Smashy accomplishes nothing but gives the cops an easier excuse to attack protesters.

They don't need a fucking excuse, they literally murder us every day.


It just feeds the liberal's suspicions of the black bloc being nothing but provocateurs.
Or workers shouldn't go on strike cause it just feeds into conservative's suspicions of us as a bunch of lazy people looking for handouts. I think the black bloc is an overused tactic, particularly the "black" aspect of it, but it's a damn good tactic nonetheless.

[praxis1966]

They don't need a fucking excuse, they literally murder us every day.

Exactly the point. I was on that anti-cap march that has everybody so worked up and I for one completely fail to see how breaking windows or tearing up a Whole Foods is anything in comparison to what the pigs did to Oscar Grant, Charles Hill, or even Scott Olsen... Or what capitalism does to the working class on a daily fucking basis. Personally, though, I think (or at least hope) that some of these Ghandi-suckers will radicalize eventually once they realize that "the 1%" isn't just going to hand over the keys to the kitty just because you ask them too. And oh, by the way, Ghandi was actually opposed to striking workers blockading things because he thought preventing a scab going to work was a form of violence... Anyway, I guess what I'm driving at here is fuck liberals... Every protest sign should have a set of instructions on the back. Step 1) Remove head from sphincter. Step 2) March.

As for tir1944 comments, and I ain't gonna parse through every one of them because they're just so damned silly, but don't call what happened out there a riot. I was there and that shit was anything but. Furthermore, nobody burnt down a goddammed thing, so stop bringing it up. But while we're on the topic, what are your opinions on Egyptians burning down police stations, eh?

EDIT: Let me just conclude by saying that not everything that's good for you is necessarily pleasant. Colonoscopies aren't a whole hell of a lot of fun but if you're over 40 you should probably get one... Just sayin'.

[tir1944]

When was the last time the police murdred some anarchist in the US?

[praxis1966]

When was the last time the police murdred some anarchist in the US?

I don't know about them murdering anarchists, but they've been murdering people left, right, and center out here for a while now. The transit cops, for instance, have been averaging a fatal shooting a month for over a year now. Apart from that, they almost killed Scott Olsen last week, but I suppose almost wouldn't be good enough for you.

[Broletariat]

When was the last time the police murdred some anarchist in the US?

tir, the great defender of the private army of the bourgeoisie, the police.

[praxis1966]

tir, the great defender of the private army of the bourgeoisie, the police.

No kidding. It's like he wants to get into a pissing contest over whose cops are worse. lol

[tir1944]

I don't know about them murdering anarchists, but they've been murdering people left, right, and center out here for a while now. The transit cops, for instance, have been averaging a fatal shooting a month for over a year now. Apart from that, they almost killed Scott Olsen last week, but I suppose almost wouldn't be good enough for you. I see...


tir, the great defender of the private army of the bourgeoisie, the police. WTF? I'm not defending the police.
Someone said "they're literally murdering us every day" and i wanted to see if that's true.

[Broletariat]

WTF? I'm not defending the police.
Someone said "they're literally murdering us every day" and i wanted to see if that's true.

In this context that question very much appears to be a defense of police, in so far as you were defending your favourite capitalist company (the cafe or something) from those damn communists who want to get rid of such things.

[tir1944]

In this context that question very much appears to be a defense of police, in so far as you were defending your favourite capitalist company (the cafe or something) from those damn communists who want to get rid of such things. Explain to me how exactly and in what way does my question appear to be a defense of police?
I simply asked for proof of the somewhat dubious claim that "the police literally murder us every day".
So,seems that in fact isn't true,and since it also isn't true that i defend the police we can conclude the discussion about this.
As for my cafe thing,i'd very much prefer if it got nationalized instead of burned to the ground."Communism" isn't about getting rid of cafes,it's,along some other slightly more important things,about expropriating/nationalizing them.
Factories to the workers,not the Fire.:)
That's all.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Small bands fucking shit up does nothing for class consciousness...

I'm all for destroying and burning, if it leads to something. Nobody ever see's these guys wreck something and says "Communism is the solution." If I didn't know anything about Communism and I saw this I'd think to myself "wow, Communists are violent, good thing the cops are here to protect us."

This isn't about defending the police or banks, this is about defending our image. There will be a time for wrecking shit, and that is when class consciousness is at an all time high. Now is not that time.

[Luís Henrique]

Just a question.

Are those acts against private property collectively decided by the general assemblies? If not, how do you relate that with the supposed sovereignity of the general assembly, and how do you justify those acts?

Luís Henrique

[Art Vandelay]

Small bands fucking shit up does nothing for class consciousness...

I'm all for destroying and burning, if it leads to something. Nobody ever see's these guys wreck something and says "Communism is the solution." If I didn't know anything about Communism and I saw this I'd think to myself "wow, Communists are violent, good thing the cops are here to protect us."

This isn't about defending the police or banks, this is about defending our image. There will be a time for wrecking shit, and that is when class consciousness is at an all time high. Now is not that time.

I can understand where you are coming from but when will that time come? When will the time come for property destruction come? Personally I see a whole lot going on in this world telling me that class consciousness is on the rise. Not to mention that I am sick of fucking capitalism and sick of what it does to this fucking world. So during a protest if I see an institution that actively oppresses me and my comrades, especially by telling them that they'll be fired if the strike, my anger reaches a point that I can no longer tolerate. So yes fucking shit up is a viable tactic. You can say it gives us bad press but it also attracts militants. And also for everyone *****ing about pr just know that no matter what we do WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET GOOD PRESS.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I can understand where you are coming from but when will that time come? When will the time come for property destruction come? Personally I see a whole lot going on in this world telling me that class consciousness is on the rise. Not to mention that I am sick of fucking capitalism and sick of what it does to this fucking world. So during a protest if I see an institution that actively oppresses me and my comrades, especially by telling them that they'll be fired if the strike, my anger reaches a point that I can no longer tolerate. So yes fucking shit up is a viable tactic. You can say it gives us bad press but it also attracts militants. And also for everyone *****ing about pr just know that no matter what we do WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET GOOD PRESS.


Class consciousness is on the rise, but it is in it's infant stages. Especially in the US. Militants are a must, I am militant as shit. I would love to go carbomb a police station, however it still doesn't mean that we should do it...yet.

In Europe the destruction of property is embraced more so than in the US, because the people have slightly more class consciousness.

Simply because we will get bad press doesn't mean we should go and get even worse press. Propaganda is a weapon of ours as well, and a damn good one in times like these. Spread flyers, audio disks, film, etc. not destroy a business right off the bat. Not because I am against the destruction of businesses and the likes, but because our ability to recruit relies on not scaring people away from us. Especially in the US where the words "communism" and "socialism" are equal to "Nazism" and "Fascism".

Look, fuck things up, I am all for it. The time for open class warfare will come. However we need to encourage others to join us, not fear us. At least in the beginning.

I am happy to see banks burn, but I know many others are not yet ready to understand why it must happen. Mobilize the masses, then proceed to fuck shit up.

[Decolonize The Left]

Are those acts against private property collectively decided by the general assemblies?

Almost certainly not.


If not, how do you relate that with the supposed sovereignity of the general assembly, and how do you justify those acts?

I don't suppose any sovereignty of the general assembly, and I justify those acts simply by allowing people to vent and express their rage at a system which has continuously and relentlessly fucked them for generations.

- August

[Tim Cornelis]

I give absolutely zero fucks if you agree with property damage or not, but I will be the one deciding to engage in it. And if you get in my way, and physically lay your hands on me to defend private property than I'm probably going to muscle you out of the way.

Personally I don't care about property damage if it s motivated by events such as the employer firing workers over striking. However, you have to consider potential allies, sympathisers, and the rest of the movement. You can smash windows, but if there is no sympathy whatsoever it is counter productive.

Your actions need to have some sympathy among the base you want to appeal to. Like a guerilla movement has to be organically connected to the working class, and not operate in some vacuum (e.g. Wheather Underground had no connection to working class movements as far as I know).


Are you seriously foolish enough to think that the reason the revolutionary left gets bad PR is because of property damage?

You're making it easy for them.


So if you do not wish to engage in property damage yourself, that's fine. But don't get in the way of others who wish to do so.

You have to realize that your actions have consequences for third parties, in this case the other protesters. Their actions will be restricted because of you, by the government. And then they will hold a grudge to both government, but especially you and the "revolutionaries".

[Rafiq]

We, not only need violence, we need organized and systematic violence. I wouldn't denounce them if they blew shit up or set things on fire, however, I think as a tactic making it organized would be much more efficient and terrifying against the Bourgeoisie.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't suppose any sovereignty of the general assembly, and I justify those acts simply by allowing people to vent and express their rage at a system which has continuously and relentlessly fucked them for generations.

Then what the purpose of general assemblies is, if they are not to decide what we are and what we are not going to do?

Luís Henrique

[Tim Cornelis]

We, not only need violence, we need organized and systematic violence. I wouldn't denounce them if they blew shit up or set things on fire, however, I think as a tactic making it organized would be much more efficient and terrifying against the Bourgeoisie.

Scaring the bourgeoisie is useless if you do not have a radical working class movement, in fact you are then merely scaring the working class you want to attract.

We are not at the stage of a potential revolutionary situation (at least in Oakland), we are at the stage of building a movement and radicalising people. You do not radicalise people by scaring them away. And once we have a radical movement, you can go ahead and spook the bourgeoisie all you want.

[Luís Henrique]

I can understand where you are coming from but when will that time come? When will the time come for property destruction come?

Perhaps when people collectively decide to do such things? I mean, when you propose to the people, "let's smash all shops whose owners don't allow workers to come to the strike", and the people actually vote for doing it?

Luís Henrique

[Eleftherios]

I give absolutely zero fucks if you agree with property damage or not, but I will be the one deciding to engage in it. And if you get in my way, and physically lay your hands on me to defend private property than I'm probably going to muscle you out of the way.



You sound like the kind of person who tries to grab protestors and hand them over to the cops for breaking windows.

Yeah, OK, next time you're in a protest and try to damage some property, I'm going to lay my hands on you, and then you're going to beat me up:rolleyes:

And, of course, the fact that I'm against petty property damage automatically means that I will grab anyone who does so and hand them over to the cops.

As for "I give absolutely zero fucks if you agree with property damage or not" well, I don't think you'll understand this, but it doesn't matter what I think, but what does matter though, is what the protesters think, and if their only idea of real anarchists/communists is a bunch of "thugs" (as they will undoubtedly see you as) smashing any building in sight, that will do more than anything else to turn people away from such ideologies.

Some people here have attempted to classify the movement as a "liberal" movement. While it might be the case that in America the average consciousness is generally far lower than it is in Europe, that doesn't mean that it will always remain like that, especially among the protesters. As Lenin once said "The masses learn more in a day of social revolution than in decades of socialist theory…An ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory." The fact is, while these people might have identified themselves as liberal at one point in the past (as I'm sure a great number of us in this forum have, dare I say the majority), this is changing really fast, especially because many now realize that both parties are screwing them over, not just the republicans.



Why is it a good idea to smash whole foods? Cause they threatened to fire any employee who failed to show up for work (i.e. participate in the general strike), or I dunno, cause its a fucking capitalist institution.Yeah, you proved your point that whole foods sucks, but that still doesn't mean it's a good idea to smash their windows. Imagine if an average, working-class woman with low consciousness, who shops at whole-foods everyday, sees a bunch of self-proclaimed revolutionaries smashing the windows, or vandalizing the shopping carts (w.e.), is that going to raise her consciousness and make her have a more positive opinion of the movement? No, on the contrary it will turn her against it, even if she was sympathetic to it beforehand.

Now, some other people on this forum argue that "the left already has bad publicity, what difference does it make if we peacefully protest or smash the windows of every business in sight?" That is actually a really defeatist attitude, because it assumes that the average person will never accept a revolution, so we might as well do whatever we want, no matter how bad it looks. While the media is doing everything it can to vilify the movement in any way it can (such as calling the protesters filthy, lazy, drug-using teenagers), a good number of Americans still support the movement, especially after they see a bunch of peaceful protesters trying to help a bleeding Scott Olsen while the police throw tear-gas at them and shoot rubber bullets. Now, if the media started showing clips of protesters vandalizing small shops and banks, that support from the general public, which currently stands at around 50 %, would plummet to around 5 %. If you don't care about that, then good luck with your revolution.


Just a question.

Are those acts against private property collectively decided by the general assemblies? If not, how do you relate that with the supposed sovereignity of the general assembly, and how do you justify those acts?

Luís Henrique

Oh, they don't care about that, all they care about is releasing their frustration and having fun while damaging property, and then calling it revolutionary.

It's actually not at all a surprise that the spokespeople at Occupy Oakland have denounced the anarchists who use such forms of violence, and said that they are not part of the general movement. Interestingly, they still accept the communists and other anti-capitalists, who do not resort to such petty tactics.

These people have completely alienated themselves from the rest of the movement.

[Decolonize The Left]

Then what the purpose of general assemblies is, if they are not to decide what we are and what we are not going to do?

Luís Henrique

They do. They decide for the vast majority of protesters who agree to follow directions.

Again, you're totally naive if you think that 100% of thousands of people are going to act in a uniform fashion.

- August

[Art Vandelay]

Perhaps when people collectively decide to do such things? I mean, when you propose to the people, "let's smash all shops whose owners don't allow workers to come to the strike", and the people actually vote for doing it?

Luís Henrique

Collective actions happen when people decide to do them, also it seems like your coming from a very pro-bureaucratic position. Revolution will not happen once some general assembly proposes it and everyone goes oh okay now we can do that, it will just happen. Again no one who partakes in property damage has any illusions about it sparking a full on revolution. It is merely an expression of anger at the things which systematically fuck them everyday. Yes I can see that there are some negative consequences to it as well, but no that is not enough to stop me in the heat of the moment.

[Luís Henrique]

They do. They decide for the vast majority of protesters who agree to follow directions.

Again, you're totally naive if you think that 100% of thousands of people are going to act in a uniform fashion.

I perfectly know that 100% of thousands of people are not going to act in a uniform fashion. This doesn't mean that we should be fine with whatever shit people imagine they can do without the agreement of the general movement, and then try to hide behind the general movement when the crap hits the fan.

I mean, would anyone be OK if a small group simply brought guns to the "occupations" and proceed to shooting cops? Or perhaps shooting anyone who didn't join the movement? What are the limits?

Luís Henrique

[Art Vandelay]

Oh, they don't care about that, all they care about is releasing their frustration and having fun while damaging property, and then calling it revolutionary.

It's actually not at all a surprise that the spokespeople at Occupy Oakland have denounced the anarchists who use such forms of violence, and said that they are not part of the general movement. Interestingly, they still accept the communists and other anti-capitalists, who do not resort to such petty tactics.

These people have completely alienated themselves from the rest of the movement.

I just cannot comprehend this viewpoint if you disagree with certain tactics than as comrades we can disagree but to actually disassociate yourself from other militant revolutionaries in favor of the protection of capitalist institutions is ridiculous.

[Decolonize The Left]

I perfectly know that 100% of thousands of people are not going to act in a uniform fashion. This doesn't mean that we should be fine with whatever shit people imagine they can do without the agreement of the general movement, and then try to hide behind the general movement when the crap hits the fan.

I mean, would anyone be OK if a small group simply brought guns to the "occupations" and proceed to shooting cops? Or perhaps shooting anyone who didn't join the movement? What are the limits?

Luís Henrique

There is no "agreement of the general movement" when it comes to individual actions. There is only agreement when it comes to collective ones. To think otherwise to to delude oneself.

And now, it's not cool to bring guns and shoot cops (or anyone) because this endangers the safety of everyone. Breaking some windows and vandalizing some walls doesn't endanger anyone.

- August

[Art Vandelay]

I perfectly know that 100% of thousands of people are not going to act in a uniform fashion. This doesn't mean that we should be fine with whatever shit people imagine they can do without the agreement of the general movement, and then try to hide behind the general movement when the crap hits the fan.

I mean, would anyone be OK if a small group simply brought guns to the "occupations" and proceed to shooting cops? Or perhaps shooting anyone who didn't join the movement? What are the limits?

Luís Henrique

Yes because the two are comparable:rolleyes:

[Luís Henrique]

Collective actions happen when people decide to do them, also it seems like your coming from a very pro-bureaucratic position.

Ah, so bottom-up democracy is now "bureaucratic"?


Revolution will not happen once some general assembly proposes it and everyone goes oh okay now we can do that, it will just happen.

But, as you certainly realise, this still isn't a revolution.


Again no one who partakes in property damage has any illusions about it sparking a full on revolution. It is merely an expression of anger at the things which systematically fuck them everyday.

In other words, it is mindless and reckless. It could jeopardise the movement, but who cares, as long as we are having fun?


Yes I can see that there are some negative consequences to it as well, but no that is not enough to stop me in the heat of the moment.

Let me venture the idea that your thermometer may be wrong.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Yes because the two are comparable:rolleyes:

Well, what is the difference? Is the life of a cop somehow more sacred than the property of some corporation?

In an actual revolution, we won't merely smash windows, we will kill cops (indeed, this is by far more important than smashing windows). So? We shouldn't have a revolution, because it requires shooting cops?

Luís Henrique

[Tim Cornelis]

There is no "agreement of the general movement" when it comes to individual actions. There is only agreement when it comes to collective ones. To think otherwise to to delude oneself.

And now, it's not cool to bring guns and shoot cops (or anyone) because this endangers the safety of everyone. Breaking some windows and vandalizing some walls doesn't endanger anyone.

- August

That's questionably though. Breaking windows gives the cops reason to beat down everyone in that general area. Like I said, your actions affect third, and unwilling, parties.

[Luís Henrique]

There is no "agreement of the general movement" when it comes to individual actions. There is only agreement when it comes to collective ones. To think otherwise to to delude oneself.

And now, it's not cool to bring guns and shoot cops (or anyone) because this endangers the safety of everyone. Breaking some windows and vandalizing some walls doesn't endanger anyone.

Oh, but shooting cops would be individual, not collective actions.

See, there is only one thing that can be said to convince people that shooting cops is wrong and smashing windows is right: that the conditions for shooting cops aren't already given, but the conditions for smashing windows are just there. But this would be the point to be discussed, then: are the conditions for smashing windows already present, or not?

If they are, then I see no problem with doing it, as I see no problem with openly discussing doing it. If they aren't, then those who insist in doing it must be isolated from the movement (and physically coerced into stopping those actions, if needed).

But this is a discussion about tactics, not a discussion about venting frustration or having fun.

Luís Henrique

[Decolonize The Left]

That's questionably though. Breaking windows gives the cops reason to beat down everyone in that general area. Like I said, your actions affect third, and unwilling, parties.

Lol no it doesn't. The cops are going to beat down everyone anyway. If you honestly think that cops react to protests then you're fooling yourself. Cops have a preset agenda which they enact systematically upon arriving on the scene. The kids breaking windows doesn't mean shit until the capitalist-owned media tells you it does.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

See, there is only one thing that can be said to convince people that shooting cops is wrong and smashing windows is right: that the conditions for shooting cops aren't already given, but the conditions for smashing windows are just there. But this would be the point to be discussed, then: are the conditions for smashing windows already present, or not?

You are correct. They are.


If they are, then I see no problem with doing it, as I see no problem with openly discussing doing it. If they aren't, then those who insist in doing it must be isolated from the movement (and physically coerced into stopping those actions, if needed).

But this is a discussion about tactics, not a discussion about venting frustration or having fun.

Luís Henrique

I see venting frustration and having fun as viable tactics given that the current system engenders frustration and suffering as the norm.

- August

[Luís Henrique]

I see venting frustration and having fun as viable tactics given that the current system engenders frustration and suffering as the norm.

Nope. Tactics are means to attain an objective, and our objective (or, at least, the objective of those among us who are revolutionaries) isn't venting frustration, but putting an end to the system altogether. So what has to be discussed isn't whether smashing windows (or shooting cops) is good at an individual level, but whether it furthers the destruction of the system - at each precise moment, because what furthers it today may not do it tomorrow, and vice-versa.

Luís Henrique

[A Marxist Historian]

Explain to me how exactly and in what way does my question appear to be a defense of police?
I simply asked for proof of the somewhat dubious claim that "the police literally murder us every day".
So,seems that in fact isn't true,and since it also isn't true that i defend the police we can conclude the discussion about this.
As for my cafe thing,i'd very much prefer if it got nationalized instead of burned to the ground."Communism" isn't about getting rid of cafes,it's,along some other slightly more important things,about expropriating/nationalizing them.
Factories to the workers,not the Fire.:)
That's all.

Are the olice murdering "us" every day?

That depends on who you include in "us." Yes, the police in the US are murdering black people and other racial minorities in America every day.

But they are not, it seems, a part of tir's "us." He's the same guy on other threads siding with the cops vs. the "looters" in England, after all. And a big Stalin fan to boot.

Reminds me of that old line so popular back in the day in the New Left.

The Lone Ranger to Tonto: "We're surrounded!"

Tonto to the Lone Ranger: "What you mean we, white man?"

-M.H.-

[Luís Henrique]

Lol no it doesn't. The cops are going to beat down everyone anyway. If you honestly think that cops react to protests then you're fooling yourself. Cops have a preset agenda which they enact systematically upon arriving on the scene.

That's certainly wrong. While they obviously have pre-set plans, those plans are flexible (if they don't try to cross the street, just keep an eye at them; if they do try to cross it, unleash hell unto them). And they will eventually change plans; what for do you think they have officials, if not for taking tactical decisions on the ground?

So yes, they do react to what is happening in protests; they may beat everybody down just because they gather into a protest, or they may allow it to go on with no intervention as long as such-and-such lines aren't crossed (and this line may be arson, or interrupting traffic, or merely going to this or that place, or it could even be as far as only reacting to violence against themselves - it depends on the situation, and on the evalution of the situation that the top brass of the police makes, and on the eventual constraints posed into the police by other institutions - city hall, city council, etc).

Their use of violence has different impacts on the situation, too. If they beat the hell out of people out of nothing, this may radicalise the people, but if there is a perceived reason for their reaction, they, or the press, can turn things upside down and use it for propaganda against the people and the movement. That's why they make use of provocateurs, too, who would be useless if their behaviour was as you describe.

Luís Henrique

[A Marxist Historian]

Collective actions happen when people decide to do them, also it seems like your coming from a very pro-bureaucratic position. Revolution will not happen once some general assembly proposes it and everyone goes oh okay now we can do that, it will just happen. Again no one who partakes in property damage has any illusions about it sparking a full on revolution. It is merely an expression of anger at the things which systematically fuck them everyday. Yes I can see that there are some negative consequences to it as well, but no that is not enough to stop me in the heat of the moment.

Well no! That is exactly how revolutions happen, case in point obviously being the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917.

Natrually you have chaotic undisciplined spontaneous revolutions. The thing about them is that they fail. For a revolution to succeed, you need democracy and you *also* need discipline and centralism! Democratic centralism!

The whole anarchistic consensus model of OWS is fail. It just means a narrow clique of liberals manipulating things behind the scenes while claiming not to be the leaders, and your irresponsible anarchists doing whatever they like no matter how much it hurts the movement. As is getting more obvious by the moment.

An infury to one is an injury to all, we need to defend everybody in the movement against the police no matter how stupid and irresponsible their tactics are.

But we need organization and discipline, to *prevent* stupidities like the morning-after fiasco after the Oakland general strike, which has definitely set back the movement a bit.

We don't need "peace police," we need war police, as we are at war and we are an army and any army needs discipline.

-M.H.-

[The Douche]

I'm so sick of the people on revleft who so obviously have absolutely no real experience in working class movements.

It is so blatantly obvious by some people's posts that they have no idea what its like to actually be in the streets or to actually organize mass actions.

The anti-war movement made a lot of progress by agreeing to a diversity of tactics, looks like all these internet warriors are going to have to relearn these things the hard way, once (if) they get active, that is...

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm so sick of the people on revleft who so obviously have absolutely no real experience in working class movements.

It is so blatantly obvious by some people's posts that they have no idea what its like to actually be in the streets or to actually organize mass actions.

The anti-war movement made a lot of progress by agreeing to a diversity of tactics, looks like all these internet warriors are going to have to relearn these things the hard way, once (if) they get active, that is...

Organizing picket lines with a handful of comrades doesn't really count as "experience in working class movements" as they are not at all representative of the working class.

You propose we smash windows, whilst it is abundantly clear that you are alienating yourself from the working class by those means. The workers, not young radicals, detest the destruction of what they perceive as their "neighbourhood" or "community" by what they deem as "hooded thugs".

You said it yourself: "[these protests are] still pretty liberal, haven't you seen the denounciations of "violence" against property, or the videos of other protestors doing everything possible, including inflicting violence on protestors to prevent damage from happening to buildings like banks or whole foods".

Those who denounce the violence they are quite representative for the attitude of the working class, those are the people you want and need to convince, yet you are scaring them away. You need to have a radical working class movement backing you up, or else you will alienate yourself from the working class. Haven't you heard the expression "you need to crawl before you learn how to throw molotov cocktails?"

[The Douche]

Listen guy, I helped to organize one of the largest anti-war protests the east coast has ever seen. We had to work with the Stalinists in ANSWER and the liberals in UFPJ, we were all able to have meetings together, we were all able to find places where our actions could work together, and times where we would have to respect the actions of others.

A diversity of tactics is necessary, you will fail without it. UFPJ and ANSWER don't support property destruction, but out of solidarity and due to our agreement on a diversity of tactics they did not publicly condemn those who committed such acts.

So you can just fuck right off with your patronizing bullshit about "picket lines with a handful of comrades".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_24,_2005_anti-war_protest This is the action I am referring to.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The issue of property destruction is a bit of a moot point.

what im mostly worried about in such situations is just the possibility of a heavy handed pig response that could get people arrested who are in no position to get arrested due to status and money situations. Im not going to run away or try to stop people from breaking windows or whatever. i do have serious disagreements with burning non-cop cars though; for example at the march i was at in Oakland the sat before the general strike i was only parked 2 blocks away and if my car got fucked up i would be completely fucked. same goes for most broke workers.

my greatest concern is simply the safety of people in the march.

[Ballyfornia]

Bad PR? Fuck off. Where do revolutionaries have "good PR"?:laugh:

.

When they're far, far away?

[The Douche]

The issue of property destruction is a bit of a moot point.

what im mostly worried about in such situations is just the possibility of a heavy handed pig response that could get people arrested who are in no position to get arrested due to status and money situations. Im not going to run away or try to stop people from breaking windows or whatever. i do have serious disagreements with burning non-cop cars though; for example at the march i was at in Oakland the sat before the general strike i was only parked 2 blocks away and if my car got fucked up i would be completely fucked. same goes for most broke workers.

my greatest concern is simply the safety of people in the march.

Heavy handed pig response... like when they shoot people in head for peacefully protesting, or when they execute young men in handcuffs?

The lives we lead are plagued by violence, every day, all day. Our existence in this world as workers is violent.

[Rafiq]

Scaring the bourgeoisie is useless if you do not have a radical working class movement, in fact you are then merely scaring the working class you want to attract.

We are not at the stage of a potential revolutionary situation (at least in Oakland), we are at the stage of building a movement and radicalising people. You do not radicalise people by scaring them away. And once we have a radical movement, you can go ahead and spook the bourgeoisie all you want.

The "radical movement' is built upon through systematic violence and organization.

It doesn't magically appear out of someone's ass (Or Trots handing out useless newspapers, for that matter).

[Tim Cornelis]

So you can just fuck right off with your patronizing bullshit about "picket lines with a handful of comrades".

Oh chill out. It's all alrighty when you imply that everyone who does not agree with you on tactics disagrees because they are inexperienced and therefore their opinions are worth nil, but when I use a hyperbolic example you get your knicks in a twist.

An anti-war movement is something different from a radical working class movement, because the former can exist of anarchists, liberals, right-wing libertarians, and Stalinists, whereas a radical labour movement requires you do not alienate the working class--common sense, no?

When you are trying to create a radical working class movement the last thing you want to do is alienate the working class, yet this is exactly what you're doing when you do something so unaccapted by that same working class. It's common sense.

Granted, smashing windows of a bank is fun and vents your frustration with "the system", but I'd rather work towards a revolutionary movement by aligning myself with the working class in order to radicalise them than have my cheap personal thrill an alienate the working class.


The "radical movement' is built upon through systematic violence and organization.

It doesn't magically appear out of someone's ass (Or Trots handing out useless newspapers, for that matter).

No it doesn't spring magically from someone's ass, nor did I imply so. A radical movement is built through workplace action and community organising. No movement has ever been built on "systematic violence" unless you want to call the highly individualist insurrectionists of the early 20th century and late 19th century a "mass movement".

[The Douche]

Oh chill out. It's all alrighty when you imply that everyone who does not agree with you on tactics disagrees because they are inexperienced and therefore their opinions are worth nil, but when I use a hyperbolic example you get your knicks in a twist.

An anti-war movement is something different from a radical working class movement, because the former can exist of anarchists, liberals, right-wing libertarians, and Stalinists, whereas a radical labour movement requires you do not alienate the working class--common sense, no?

When you are trying to create a radical working class movement the last thing you want to do is alienate the working class, yet this is exactly what you're doing when you do something so unaccapted by that same working class. It's common sense.

Granted, smashing windows of a bank is fun and vents your frustration with "the system", but I'd rather work towards a revolutionary movement by aligning myself with the working class in order to radicalise them than have my cheap personal thrill an alienate the working class.

The anti-war movement was a mass movement, with a lot more participation by the organized sectors of the working class than the occupy movement has.


And yes, if you don't understand/accept a diversity of tactics, you are inexperienced, because every movement which has managed to gain any sort of momentum and unite wide segments of the working class has adopted the idea.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Heavy handed pig response... like when they shoot people in head for peacefully protesting, or when they execute young men in handcuffs?

The lives we lead are plagued by violence, every day, all day. Our existence in this world as workers is violent.


I dont care if retaliation against police happens but at this point im not going to organize it.

the point i was trying to make is just that i will do my best to make sure that people who cant face that kind of risk are in a safe position or are 'out of dodge' in time.

[Tim Cornelis]

The anti-war movement was a mass movement, with a lot more participation by the organized sectors of the working class than the occupy movement has.

My point was, in anti-war movement right-wing libertarians and Stalinists are able to cooperate towards a common goal, in a working class movement they cannot. It was not an argument of whom was participating.



And yes, if you don't understand/accept a diversity of tactics, you are inexperienced, because every movement which has managed to gain any sort of momentum and unite wide segments of the working class has adopted the idea.

But here we are getting at the crux of the issue, we are in the process of creating a movement, i.e. attracting people, discussing tactics, radicalizing them if possible, etc.

You go to Greece and smash a window of a bank, fine, go ahead. But in Oakland, not so fine. Now you are merely alienating yourself, where you should be consolidating.

[The Douche]

My point was, in anti-war movement right-wing libertarians and Stalinists are able to cooperate towards a common goal, in a working class movement they cannot. It was not an argument of whom was participating.




But here we are getting at the crux of the issue, we are in the process of creating a movement, i.e. attracting people, discussing tactics, radicalizing them if possible, etc.

You go to Greece and smash a window of a bank, fine, go ahead. But in Oakland, not so fine. Now you are merely alienating yourself, where you should be consolidating.

You can't have a movement without solidarity, you can't have solidarity with denounciations of your fellow workers just cause they do things you don't like.





And again, you can fuck right off, you don't live in Greece or Oakland, so how the fuck should you know where it is ok to do what? And even if you think its not ok, you deal with it within the movement, you don't denounce people to the public. Don't act like this is the first time property destruction has happend at a protest in the US, or Oakland for that matter.

[The Douche]

A friend reblogged this:



It is NOT “macho” to smash windows. At least half the black bloc were women, and many people of color. Have you not heard of Laila Khaled? What about Comandante Ramona? They were fucking soldiers.

Look at every other social movement in the world—will you condemn Egyptians for torching government buildings when by doing that, they are now running their own country instead of living under an oppressive authoritarian regime? Do you think the U.S. left Vietnam because they sat in peaceful protest while the United States blew their heads off? No.

It’s called resistance. I think a huge reason there’s so much “peace policing” happening at this protest is because so many white people—and poc who are fooled into their racist bullshit—are involved. I talked to a “hippy” white man on the way to the docks, and he said: “I don’t have a problem with undercover cops. That’s their job.” Yeah, seriously. Undercover cops have never fucked your shit up because you’re a white man who owns land. But they destroyed black families with crack. They killed Chicano leaders when they were actually starting to get people’s attention.

What the fuck did white liberals ever do for me? My mom couldn’t get welfare anymore because of Bill Clinton. White conservatives? She couldn’t get housing assistance because Bush cut the program that was helping her out. The white man created the circumstances that gave birth to my psychopathic gangster of a father. I don’t owe them shit. I don’t owe them an apology if I smash a fucking window—which I regrettably did not. I don’t owe ANYBODY an apology for exercising my freedom of speech when I write words on a public wall. That’s the people’s wall. It’s my wall. The corporations should be apologizing to us for filling our world with hideous advertisements.

But you are absolutely right: I’m not part of the same 99% as privileged white people who grew up believing the rich white man’s version of history. I’m not part of the group of poc that have been fooled by the white man’s lies. What the fuck do you have to be angry about? You don’t have a mercedes? You can’t afford 40,000 channels on the Dish anymore? You can’t easily pay for your shitty kids to go to school? Well guess what, my people have been dealing with that for our entire history, and we still are experiencing real oppression.

You don’t understand why preaching nonviolence is racist because you don’t understand violence. You don’t understand what it’s like to live in a place where you might get shot every time you step outside your door. You don’t understand the violence we experience when the police treat the families of criminals, like criminals. You don’t understand the violence I experience every time I turn on the television, and see my people portrayed as either whores, day laborers, or maids. When I fight back, it’s not violence—it’s resistance.

I wish I could say I had more white friends that sympathized, that tried to understand the oppression of my people—but they are few. I love them. I trust them. But I don’t trust the rest of you white people to back up me or my people when we get radical. I don’t fool myself into thinking you’re getting together to change things for me. You do this for you. I’m not part of your 99%, and I don’t want to be.

[Fawkes]

WTF? I'm not defending the police.
Someone said "they're literally murdering us every day" and i wanted to see if that's true.

It is true.

By us, I don't mean just anarchists, I mean workers. I mean anyone who doesn't look right. I mean anyone who doesn't dress right. I mean anyone who doesn't talk or act right. I mean anyone who gets in their way. I mean anyone who steps out of line. I mean anyone who speaks out. I mean anyone caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Worldwide, every single one of us is an itchy trigger-finger away from getting legally-sanctioned bullets in our heads.

These motherfuckers don't need an excuse, they're the footsoldiers of the state. Claiming property destruction encourages cops to get violent is tantamount to claiming short skirts encourage rape.

[The Douche]

Claiming property destruction encourages cops to get violent is tantamount to claiming short skirts encourage rape.

This.

[Martin Blank]

Y'know, I've been politically active for almost 24 years. I've organized or been to virtually every kind of form of action that can be done. Many of these actions have had a good share of the smashy-smashy as a part of them. Based on my own observations and experiences, I think it's important to dispense with some myths about these acts:

MYTH No. 1: Breaking windows or trashing shops increases police aggression and violence. In fact, it really doesn't. What it does is make the cops focus their aggression and violence on a specific group of protesters. If the cops choose to be aggressive and violent against protesters, they will not wait for someone to break a window before "bustin' heads".

MYTH No. 2: Acts of property damage drive people away from the movement. Not really true, though there may be individuals who are found in a crowd of tens of thousands who will denounce such damage and vow to never return. In reality, though, most of those who might or would object to a little smashy-smashy will continue to come back to the protests and other actions of the movement, tactical differences and all.

MYTH No. 3: Damaging property provokes negative media coverage and turns "public opinion" against the movement. Of the three myths so far, this one is the silliest. The corporate media will always portray socially-progressive or radical movements negatively, no matter what happens. It is their job to make these protesters look like idiots or criminals, so that their corporate masters can cast themselves as angels. Moreover, "public opinion" is itself a media construct, designed to allow those same corporate masters to shape what is considered proper and "respectable".

MYTH No. 4: Property damage is vandalism or hooliganism, and thus injures the movement. Answering the second half of this is the easiest. It is essentially the same as the answer to Myth No. 2, so there's no need to repeat myself. Whether damaging bourgeois private property is vandalism or hooliganism depends more on what is being damaged than the general motivation or act itself. For example, trashing or burning some worker's car parked on the street is little more than petty vandalism and hooliganism. On the other hand, attacking a Whole Foods store where unionbusting has been rampant, if it is done correctly, can leave a strong political message.

My point in raising this is that all of us, as self-described revolutionaries, need to avoid the trap of "respectability" that the ruling classes set for us. To follow the call toward "respectability" is like voluntarily putting on your chains; you become conscious servants at the left flank of the capitalist order. We saw that in stunning relief during the course of the August Rebellion in England. Let's not see it again.

[Rafiq]

No it doesn't spring magically from someone's ass, nor did I imply so. A radical movement is built through workplace action and community organising.

But what does this even mean? Not much. Radical movements are built in direct responses to the conditions established by "Mean" capitalism (The shittier it gets, the more radical the proletariat will be in their demands). The action is going on right now. What they need is organization of both violence and revolutionary activity.


No movement has ever been built on "systematic violence" unless you want to call the highly individualist insurrectionists of the early 20th century and late 19th century a "mass movement".

The Bolshevik party. Movements do not start out that way, but they grow that way. Think of it as the seed being the movement itself and the necessary resources to make that seed grow as systematic violence. Individualist Terrorism is not "systematic violence".

[Die Neue Zeit]

Many of these actions have had a good share of the smashy-smashy as a part of them.

[...]

In reality, though, most of those who might or would object to a little smashy-smashy will continue to come back to the protests and other actions of the movement, tactical differences and all.

[...]

For example, trashing or burning some worker's car parked on the street is little more than petty vandalism and hooliganism. On the other hand, attacking a Whole Foods store where unionbusting has been rampant, if it is done correctly, can leave a strong political message.

I think the key words there are "a good share of the smashy-smashy" and "a little smashy-smashy." I won't go as far as you have in describing the August events in the UK, but the bourgeois media has blatantly overblown the "smashy-smashy" that occurred in Oakland.

[Fawkes]

I feel like Alex from A Clockwork Orange would say "smashy-smashy"

[Ocean Seal]

Destruction of property is not only necessary, but it is something that will arise from a genuine working class movement. It is something that happens. It is the working class rising up and venting their anger in random spurts of violence. It may seem disorganized, but there is a harmony to it. All small celled attacks are part of a greater ploy against the ruling class. We cannot control proletarian spontaneity. Shit happens. We don't condemn the attacks, but rather we seek to explain them. If we condemn them, we alienate those who will be our greatest allies in the revolution, the most militant of workers. But at the same time, at the moment, we don't encourage these types of attacks, especially by large semi-well established organizations. That is essentially keeping ourselves under the watch of the police, and preventing our organizations from growing. What we have to get to doing is getting people to sympathize with those who fight against capitalism, and those who do so most militantly. We must tell the people why these things happen, and they being workers will naturally understand. That's about it. And make sure not to hurt anyone during these attacks. That's something that we should make clear from moment one. Anyone who is careless enough or stupid enough to kill a worker is an immediate class enemy.

[A Marxist Historian]

The "radical movement' is built upon through systematic violence and organization.

It doesn't magically appear out of someone's ass (Or Trots handing out useless newspapers, for that matter).

Organization yes. "Built through systematic violence"? What a lot of horse manure.

Violence for the hell of it is just petty bourgeois idiocy. For the working class, violence is used when necessary and not used when not necessary.

It doesn't "build" a movement, but is a tool a movement will use when the right times come. Not before, not after.

The bourgeois state needs to be smashed, which will require violence. And afterwards, we build a workers state, which will have violence as one of its tools, though hopefully not overdoing it too much, something that has happened in the past at times.
-M.H.-

[Fawkes]

What the hell does "violence for the hell of it" have to do with the petty bourgeois?


Seriously, the petty bourgeois is a fucking class, not an insult.

[A Marxist Historian]

What the hell does "violence for the hell of it" have to do with the petty bourgeois?


Seriously, the petty bourgeois is a fucking class, not an insult.

It has everything to do with the petty bourgeoisie. What is their defining characteristic? Individualism and pettiness.

The working class, joined together in collective groups by modern industry, acts collectively and, at least potentially, according to rational planning. That's because it is the class which makes society run, which is why it deserves and needs to rule society, so as to be able to create a new world.

The petty bourgeoisie, whose relationship to society is small scale and individualistic, does stuff for the hell of it because it is fun and/or lets off some steam, not because the situation requires it.

In a strike, workers instantly understand who is the target and, at the practical level, what is to be done to accomplish the goal. Better than anyone can tell them from outside. I've been there and done that, and seen it. Won't give too many details, as there was one strike I was involved in where folk got prosecuted afterwards, and who knows who is reading this, or if they can penetrate the anonymity here.

Just by way of example, smashing the widow in a factory is a great idea if you are occupying it and the cops are tossing in tear gas grenades for example (here I am not discussing personal experience). Smash 'em for the fun of it? When they'll have to go back to work there after the strike is over? Nah. Just gives the company some nice photo ops to mobilize public opinion against you.

What's the purpose of smashing a few bank windows or whatever? To make you feel better afterwards. Totally petty bourgeois. Sure, it happens, always will, not the end of the world, but yes it is counterproductive.

-M.H.-

[Savage]

Bourgeois society will always repress anything it sees as a threat to its existence, there is no avoiding this for us. We may as well stay in our cages if we are worried about 'damaging our image' or anything like that.

[tir1944]

By us, I don't mean just anarchists, I mean workers. I mean anyone who doesn't look right. I mean anyone who doesn't dress right. I mean anyone who doesn't talk or act right. I mean anyone who gets in their way. I mean anyone who steps out of line. I mean anyone who speaks out. I mean anyone caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. We the people...

[The Douche]

We the people...

What the fuck is that supposed to mean, you pro-cop troll?

[b man]

It's obviously not time for property destruction of random shops. Tactical error. Plain and simple. Not bad in itself, but in this situation it is bad. We need to be patient, and do the hard work of getting the population educated about systemic change. That should be our number one goal at the moment. I have yet to see an explanation of what smashing shop windows does to advance our cause.

I think arguably we can start talking about vandalism if specifically directed at the banks. That is one thing that we may be nearing the time for. However, it must be done on a mass scale. If carried out throughout a city like Oakland on all branches of the big 4 banks, it might work in that it both a- has mass support, and b- further radicalizes the movement. Those are the effects we want an action to have. Smashing windows at Men's Warehouse does not have either one.

What is really necessary though is an occupation of an institution (not a city park) from which an example can be set and more radical action can spread from and be inspired by. I am thinking of the occupation by the students of the University of Nanterre in 1968 which led the student occupation of the Sorbonne which was the base from which the general strike was launched(and which provided inspiration for important actions in the rest of the country). I don't know much about Oakland, if there is a union radical enough to be the first to take the plunge, or a student group. Maybe another city would be better.

We need the think bigger about the next move. We have a chance of creating a mass movement. Think about that. Us. On revleft.com.

In short:
1) Make what people want radical
2) Do what people want

[tir1944]

It means,that's it's not a working class position the poster took,but a bourgeois-liberal one that's best expressed in the phrase "we the people".
Do you understand now,?

[Fawkes]

It means,that's it's not a working class position the poster took,but a bourgeois-liberal one that's best expressed in the phrase "we the people".
Do you understand now,?


By us, I don't mean just anarchists, I mean workers. I mean anyone who doesn't look right. I mean anyone who doesn't dress right. I mean anyone who doesn't talk or act right. I mean anyone who gets in their way. I mean anyone who steps out of line. I mean anyone who speaks out. I mean anyone caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The sentences following the first were just expounding on it. It's not solely a matter of cops cracking the skulls of striking workers -- if you're a black male with breast implants walking down the street you better be looking over your shoulder because you're disrupting the social hegemony that guarantees the continued dominance of the bourgeois. That's why I included those other sentences.

Do you understand now?

[tir1944]

The sentences following the first were just expounding on it.
No,you extended the list of "us" basing your "analyis" on the way people dress and walk,among other things.
Not a trace of class/materialist analysis tho.


It's not solely a matter of cops cracking the skulls of striking workers -- if you're a black male with breast implants walking down the street you better be looking over your shoulder because you're disrupting the social hegemony that guarantees the continued dominance of the bourgeois
You are aware of the fact that most of those who can actually afford breast implants are capitalists or at least the petit-bourgeoisie,aren't you?
Also "social hegemony" (quite an awkward term) "depends" on, is created and perpetuated by the ruling class,it's not the other way around as you seem to be implying. imply.Ever heard of base and superstructure?



That's why I included those other sentences.
Yep,and that's why it don't mean nothing.
Someone who walks or dresses in a weird way ain't automatically "us".

[Fawkes]

No,you extended the list of "us" basing your "analyis" on the way people dress and walk,among other things.
Not a trace of class/materialist analysis tho.

I'm not a worker first and then a bunch of other things. I'm a working-class, 20 year old, white, queer, college student, etc., and I face various oppressions as a result of that. How is this not a materialist analysis? I'm an advocate/agitator of a class war, how is that remotely "bourgeois-liberal"?


You are aware of the fact that most of those who can actually afford breast implants are capitalists or at least the petit-bourgeoisie,aren't you?
Yeah, so what? I've been considering implants -- if I decide to get them and manage to save up enough money, am I a capitalist? Your statement means nothing, who gives a shit if the majority of people with implants happen to be bourgeois (though I haven't actually read anything to prove that), that doesn't mean everyone is.


Also "social hegemony" (quite an awkward term) "depends" on, is created and perpetuated by the ruling class,it's not the other way around as you seem to be implying. imply.Ever heard of base and superstructure?
I know, and I'm referring to individuals that subvert or transgress those boundaries. And yes, I have.


Yep,and that's why it don't mean nothing.
Cool story, bro

[redwog]

What's missing in this discussion, is an analysis of the state and class consciousness. These are the only 2 things that matter in this debate - everything else is a debate about politico-morality. I tried to raise this earlier (http://www.revleft.com/vb/occupy-oakland-blocks-t163714/index2.html) (post 37), but was ignored. Sometimes it seems like flaming or trolling is the only thing that gets responses on revleft.

Smashy-smashy when people are not supportive on a mass level is individualistic and an easy out when the real challenge is helping to organise and develop consciousness.

This is a suggested narrative for the strategy of non-violence vs direct action:

Despite the portrayal of the early southern civil rights movement; non-violence was a strategy employed to engage the white middle-classes by appealing to their liberal sensibility. It was not a principled position.

Once the movement moved north and capitalism was the enemy not segregation, non-violence was no longer strategically correct as no alliance with middle class sensibilites would be on offer or of any use. Hence the rhetoric of Malcolm X and the latter formation of the Panthers.

Clearly we all agree that the peace as a principle position is a short coming of consciousness. The peace police, are unable to separate the genuine desire to act peacefully and the need for self-defense/direct action. The smashy-smashy comrades should spend their time telling the story of non-violence as a tactic rather than a steadfast principle more and breaking windows less.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's probably a pointless debate to have anyway. Most of the people who are professional window-breakers don't even share the same ideology as the majority of people on this site. Sure,they may label themselves as communists or anti-capitalists, but that's where the similarities end. They'll continue to make total destroy regardless of how eloquent the arguments are to the contrary. *shrug*

That's without going into the fact that I don't think us being "good scouts" builds consciousness at all...aka those protestors make such cogent arguments, I've suddenly realized my precarious position on the economic order.

[The Douche]

It's probably a pointless debate to have anyway. Most of the people who are professional window-breakers don't even share the same ideology as the majority of people on this site. Sure,they may label themselves as communists or anti-capitalists, but that's where the similarities end. They'll continue to make total destroy regardless of how eloquent the arguments are to the contrary. *shrug*

That's without going into the fact that I don't think us being "good scouts" builds consciousness at all...aka those protestors make such cogent arguments, I've suddenly realized my precarious position on the economic order.


In my mind, if you don't want to make total destroy, you are not a communist.

[the last donut of the night]

i don't understand the whole hoopla being created around this. these things happen at large protests and you can't really avoid them. focus on more important stuff

[Paul Cockshott]

the primary aim has to be to broaden support for the movement, and in particular to win support among vetrans and the army and marines. Vandalism is pointless.

[Art Vandelay]

It's probably a pointless debate to have anyway. Most of the people who are professional window-breakers don't even share the same ideology as the majority of people on this site. Sure,they may label themselves as communists or anti-capitalists, but that's where the similarities end. They'll continue to make total destroy regardless of how eloquent the arguments are to the contrary. *shrug*

That's without going into the fact that I don't think us being "good scouts" builds consciousness at all...aka those protestors make such cogent arguments, I've suddenly realized my precarious position on the economic order.

Really because I would have to say that the most eloquent argument given so far was from a member who although may not be pro-property damage, you would have to ask him not me, he dismissed many of the myths being levied against it. All I see as a critique from the other side of the argument is a bunch of Leninists rehashing the same arguments and thinking that everyone should have to tow the party line. Many have made it clear that they will use force to stop property destruction. Typical authoritarianism rearing its ugly head.

[The Douche]

the primary aim has to be to broaden support for the movement, and in particular to win support among vetrans and the army and marines. Vandalism is pointless.

That might be your aim, but you are not the grand poobah of the anti-capitalist movement. I think I will decide for myself what is most important and argue for whatever tactics I think are effective.

[tir1944]

I think I will decide for myself what is most important and argue for whatever tactics I think are effective.
Well at least you're being open about your extreme individualism and arbitrariness.

[The Douche]

Well at least you're being open about your extreme individualism and arbitrariness.

hey bro, heads up, I don't like your posts, I think you're a troll, now you're going on my ignore list.

[b man]

i don't understand the whole hoopla being created around this. these things happen at large protests and you can't really avoid them. focus on more important stuff

It's a part of a of a wider debate. Do we get our leftist nuts off or do we build a real movement?

[Art Vandelay]

It's a part of a of a wider debate. Do we get our leftist nuts off or do we build a real movement?

Its part of a wider debate. Do we believe in freedom and a movement springing from the materialist conditions of the world, or do we see ourselves as above the working class who must use force to make them do what we want, like a farmer with a cattle prod.

[A Marxist Historian]

The sentences following the first were just expounding on it. It's not solely a matter of cops cracking the skulls of striking workers -- if you're a black male with breast implants walking down the street you better be looking over your shoulder because you're disrupting the social hegemony that guarantees the continued dominance of the bourgeois. That's why I included those other sentences.

Do you understand now?

If you are a black male walking down the street or driving your car you are in trouble with the cops these days, that's a major fact of contemporary American life. DWB's, arrests for Driving While Black, are more and more getting supplemented by DWW's. After all you have over two million people in jail in this democracy of ours, more than in the USSR at the height of Stalin's gulags, and you have to keep the Prison Industrial Complex going somehow.

What breat implants have to do with this is mysterious however. I think it's, er, fairly clear that women getting breast implants doesn't disrupt social hegemony and lead to The Revolution. The idea that men doing it is gonna change anything or lead to the system crumbling is, well, out there.

If anything, a black man in drag is *less* likely to be busted than if he looks like an angry rapper or has fashionable gang tats or something, as it is precisely the black male who gets demonized the most.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

In my mind, if you don't want to make total destroy, you are not a communist.

Hah. communism is about construction not destruction. If you are into total destroy, you are, at best, a nihilist.

Actually, total destroy is more the province of Nazis, and of the capitalist class. Hiroshima, that's your total destroy for you.

-M.H.-

[The Douche]

If you are a black male walking down the street or driving your car you are in trouble with the cops these days, that's a major fact of contemporary American life. DWB's, arrests for Driving While Black, are more and more getting supplemented by DWW's. After all you have over two million people in jail in this democracy of ours, more than in the USSR at the height of Stalin's gulags, and you have to keep the Prison Industrial Complex going somehow.

What breat implants have to do with this is mysterious however. I think it's, er, fairly clear that women getting breast implants doesn't disrupt social hegemony and lead to The Revolution. The idea that men doing it is gonna change anything or lead to the system crumbling is, well, out there.

If anything, a black man in drag is *less* likely to be busted than if he looks like an angry rapper or has fashionable gang tats or something, as it is precisely the black male who gets demonized the most.

-M.H.-

Yeah, cops are totally tolerant of gender queer minorities, who should have no fear when they see the police.

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

[The Douche]

Hah. communism is about construction not destruction. If you are into total destroy, you are, at best, a nihilist.

Actually, total destroy is more the province of Nazis, and of the capitalist class. Hiroshima, that's your total destroy for you.

-M.H.-

Capital absorbs everything in this world, thats why its necessary to make total destroy, what part of this world do you want to maintain?

[A Marxist Historian]

i don't understand the whole hoopla being created around this. these things happen at large protests and you can't really avoid them. focus on more important stuff

This is touched off by the morning-after backlash in Oakland over the poorly thought out occupation of a building and barricades and street fires to *not* defend it, but instead just make the blocsters feel good, which was very counter to the mass mobilization to shut down the Port of Oakland, which was operating on a very different level.

You had some rather overblown fears over how this would destroy all the benefits of this great victory for the movement. In fact, only in Oakland itself is there much of that effect on popular opinion. Naturally, Quan is trying to use this to end Occupy Oakland, but that has now backfired on her again.

The negative effect on Oakland popular opinion has now been neutralized, as it turns out the OPD in the middle of the incident hospitalized *another* Iraq war vet, this time a white small business owner of all things, who wasn't even a protester, was just there by accident and didn't like what the cops were doing!

Now, I've been arguing that this unfortunate incident shows the need for more discipline and centralism in the movement to prevent this kind of thing, but you do have to keep the overall perspective.

The main problem in OWS is not the occasional stupid Black Bloc anarchists doing stupid things. It's the sellouts misleading so many OWS occupations--but Oakland not so much.

The real tragedy of the Black Bloc idiocy in Oakland it turns out would be if it puts the sellouts who want to talk nice to Mayor Quan back in command.

-M.H.-

[b man]

The real tragedy of the Black Bloc idiocy in Oakland it turns out would be if it puts the sellouts who want to talk nice to Mayor Quan back in command.

-M.H.-

Excellent point. It is painfully obvious that the majority of the people involved in this do not support Black Bloc type vandalism. Now we can argue if they should or not but it is a mute point. They don't, so when they see it, they oppose it and are de-radicalized. I am optimistic enough to think that we still have enough radicalism in this movement to avoid being co-opted by establishment liberal forces though (as Wisconsin and Ohio have largely been).

[b man]

Its part of a wider debate. Do we believe in freedom and a movement springing from the materialist conditions of the world, or do we see ourselves as above the working class who must use force to make them do what we want, like a farmer with a cattle prod.

Agreed. What do you think our strategy should be going forward?

[RED DAVE]

In my mind, if you don't want to make total destroy, you are not a communist.Where did you pick up that piece of nonsense?

Do you want to destroy people's homes, where they live, schools, hospitals? Remember you said, "total" destruction.

RED DAVE

[The Douche]

Where did you pick up that piece of nonsense?

Do you want to destroy people's homes, where they live, schools, hospitals? Remember you said, "total" destruction.

RED DAVE

All of those concepts, as they exist under the present social conditions ought to be destroyed.

I will put to you the same question I asked of AMH, what part of this world is it that you want to maintain? (for clarity's sake, by world I mean the existing social order, if that was not implied)

[Decolonize The Left]

All of those concepts, as they exist under the present social conditions ought to be destroyed.

I will put to you the same question I asked of AMH, what part of this world is it that you want to maintain? (for clarity's sake, by world I mean the existing social order, if that was not implied)

This touches on the discussion I was having with bcbm in the other thread (the one on Marx and vandalism). I think the fundamental misunderstanding here, at least what was between me and bcbm, is that while I'm all for total destruction of the existing social order I'm not all for total destruction of existing material structures and things.

So I'm down to destroy the social order of how hospitals operate, but not down to destroy the hospital. It seems futile and totally arrogant to destroy a perfectly functional building which has the instruments and technology we will most certainly need to care for members of our class.

I'm down to destroy the existing social order of schools, but not down to destroy all the books in a library. This is valuable information and historical records which may prove useful in the future.

I'm down to destroy the existing social order of the family, but not down to burn down someone's home.

So what part of the world do I want to maintain? None if you define world as existing social order. But a whole lot if you define world as actual functional material reality.

- August

[bcbm]

This touches on the discussion I was having with bcbm in the other thread (the one on Marx and vandalism). I think the fundamental misunderstanding here, at least what was between me and bcbm, is that while I'm all for total destruction of the existing social order I'm not all for total destruction of existing material structures and things.

me either but sometimes shit happens

[WeAreReborn]

me either but sometimes shit happens
I agree. Its naturally not preferable for perfectly good buildings to be destroyed, but if it happens it happens. Its the reality of class struggle. And for those to dismiss it and to drop solidarity does nothing but harm the movement and the struggle.

[b man]

I agree. Its naturally not preferable for perfectly good buildings to be destroyed, but if it happens it happens. Its the reality of class struggle. And for those to dismiss it and to drop solidarity does nothing but harm the movement and the struggle.

Of course it doesn't. So why do it? Because you know that the masses are not sufficiently radicalized to stand in solidarity with those actions. Therefore petty vandalism necessarily results in no advancement of the movement.

[The Douche]

Of course it doesn't. So why do it? Because you know that the masses are not sufficiently radicalized to stand in solidarity with those actions. Therefore petty vandalism necessarily results in no advancement of the movement.

Anybody who sheds tears over the property of a bank or wholefoods is immediately suspect in my mind.

[RED DAVE]

In my mind, if you don't want to make total destroy, you are not a communist.
Where did you pick up that piece of nonsense?

Do you want to destroy people's homes, where they live, schools, hospitals? Remember you said, "total" destruction.
All of those concepts, as they exist under the present social conditions ought to be destroyed.Oh really? "Destroyed" means destroyed. It doesn't mean transformed, subverted, etc. You sound like an angry adolescent.


I will put to you the same question I asked of AMH, what part of this world is it that you want to maintain? (for clarity's sake, by world I mean the existing social order, if that was not implied)It is not a matter of what I want to maintain? It is a matter of what the working class wants to maintain after the revolution. Your position is that of an egotist, not a class warrior.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Anybody who sheds tears over the property of a bank or wholefoods is immediately suspect in my mind.Anyone who disrupts a planned demonstration with individual violence is suspect in my mind.

RED DAVE

[black magick hustla]

You sound like an angry adolescent.

I
RED DAVE

young 4ever suckas

[black magick hustla]

i dont want to destroy everything but dont mind some buildings sparking fireworks. also the bolsheviks engaged in criminality to fund their party btw, stalin was all about robbing banks and shit

[ZeroNowhere]

In my mind, if you don't want to make total destroy, you are not a communist.
Communism doesn't destroy everything, just capitalist social relations and annoying internet memes.

[bcbm]

Anyone who disrupts a planned demonstration with individual violence is suspect in my mind.

RED DAVE

the whole foods attack happened during an anti-capitalist march that had approved diversity of tactics

[manic expression]

the whole foods attack happened during an anti-capitalist march that had approved diversity of tactics
"Diversity of tactics" doesn't mean counterproductive acts aren't counterproductive. If you're going to talk about tactics then talk about the wisdom of a given tactic compared to the alternatives.


In my mind, if you don't want to make total destroy, you are not a communist.
What do you mean by "make total destroy"? Carpet bombing cities /=/ communism. :rolleyes: Look, your position has some valid points, but the principle of self-defense is being basically ignored in favor of some fascination with broken windows.

[bcbm]

"Diversity of tactics" doesn't mean counterproductive acts aren't counterproductive. If you're going to talk about tactics then talk about the wisdom of a given tactic compared to the alternatives.

i didn't say anything about it being productive or not, simply that the 'planned demonstration' had made space for these kind of tactics.

[manic expression]

i didn't say anything about it being productive or not, simply that the 'planned demonstration' had made space for these kind of tactics.
I admit I'm not up-to-date on what's been going on...how did the planned demo endorse or approve such tactics? Regardless, there's always "space" to do such things, but I don't think it's at all a good idea at this juncture.

[bcbm]

I admit I'm not up-to-date on what's been going on...how did the planned demo endorse or approve such tactics? Regardless, there's always "space" to do such things, but I don't think it's at all a good idea at this juncture.

it was an anti-capitalist march that endorsed 'autonomous actions' and 'diversity of tactics.' pretty clear what that means

[The Douche]

Anyone who disrupts a planned demonstration with individual violence is suspect in my mind.

RED DAVE

You sound like a KKE apologist here, bro.

[manic expression]

it was an anti-capitalist march that endorsed 'autonomous actions' and 'diversity of tactics.' pretty clear what that means
Endorsing a "diversity of tactics" doesn't automatically mean what you seem to want to think it means, else they would have said "do whatever the hell you want regardless of consequences".

[The Douche]

Endorsing a "diversity of tactics" doesn't automatically mean what you seem to want to think it means, else they would have said "do whatever the hell you want regardless of consequences".

A diversity of tactics agreement means that you acknowledge you may not agree with certain acts that occur but you will not attempt to limit these acts or criticize them outside of healthy debate within the movement. It used to be required before lots of anarchist groups would do joint work in the anti-war movement.

[bcbm]

Endorsing a "diversity of tactics" doesn't automatically mean what you seem to want to think it means, else they would have said "do whatever the hell you want regardless of consequences".

dude i've been involved in us protests where there was an agreement on 'diversity of tactics' it generally means there is going to be smashy smashy.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

In my occupy protest we have "diversity of tactics" as a point of unity.In my group this means that everyone respects each other's strategy, which includes violence during actions.Weird eh? The group doesn't sanction violence but it does tolerate it.

[RED DAVE]

Anyone who disrupts a planned demonstration with individual violence is suspect in my mind.
You sound like a KKE apologist here, bro.Fuck you. You want to justify throwing a molotov cocktail, go ahead. The KKE is full of shit, and so is whoever pulled that stunt. What was accomplished?

As the class struggle slowly accelerates, the adolescent politics of the bullshit block will fade away.

RED DAVE

[manic expression]

A diversity of tactics agreement means that you acknowledge you may not agree with certain acts that occur but you will not attempt to limit these acts or criticize them outside of healthy debate within the movement. It used to be required before lots of anarchist groups would do joint work in the anti-war movement.
And I'm not criticizing them outside of discussion within the left...I'm questioning them here because I don't see the faintest justifications for them.


dude i've been involved in us protests where there was an agreement on 'diversity of tactics' it generally means there is going to be smashy smashy.
Just because someone's willing to not criticize such actions doesn't make it a good idea.

[Die Neue Zeit]

A diversity of tactics agreement means that you acknowledge you may not agree with certain acts that occur but you will not attempt to limit these acts or criticize them outside of healthy debate within the movement. It used to be required before lots of anarchist groups would do joint work in the anti-war movement.

There is still no unity in action, though.

[black magick hustla]

As the class struggle slowly accelerates, the adolescent politics of the bullshit block will fade away.

RED DAVE

man your types are about as marginal as smashy smashy anarchists. if you argue that smashy smashy is counterproductive and wont win people to the GOOD SIDE or whatever, so is whatever you did and the folks with your politics did, because they arent that popular either.

anyway, my viewpoint on smashy smashy is kudos if you get away with it but its not worth the jail time. i wont condemn some motherfucker for lighting up a dominos or a walmart tho

[Luís Henrique]

What the hell does "violence for the hell of it" have to do with the petty bourgeois?

It has everything to do with the petty bourgeoisie, with the individualism of the average petty bourgeois, with the impossibility of the petty bourgeoisie as a class to stand for the actual destruction of bourgeois relations (which gets replaced by the "symbolic" destruction of stuff), with the inability of the petty bourgeosie to see further than the very next moment, with the inability of the petty bourgeoisie to organise, with the petty bourgeois mithology of doing things for, and in place, of the proletariat, with the petty bourgeois inconsequence, etc.

Luís Henrique

[The Douche]

Fuck you. You want to justify throwing a molotov cocktail, go ahead. The KKE is full of shit, and so is whoever pulled that stunt. What was accomplished?

As the class struggle slowly accelerates, the adolescent politics of the bullshit block will fade away.

RED DAVE

The thing is, I don't think you're as bad as those dudes. But you sound like one when you make those kind of comments.

What was accomplished? Anybody who thought that physical resistance, to include violence wasn't possible was proven wrong. But even if nothing was accomplished... what harm came from it? Except for maybe some of the people who did it getting nabbed?



I don't want to engage in a discussion about whether smashing things is good. My beef is the abandonment of the diversity of tactics agreement and the liberal activists turning on the revolutionaries. If you don't want to smash things I'm not interested in telling you that it is somehow "necessary" or why it "should be done", I just think that if you agree to something you should stick by it. And if there was some sort of problem then there should have been no diversity of tactics agreement.

[Luís Henrique]

I will put to you the same question I asked of AMH, what part of this world is it that you want to maintain? (for clarity's sake, by world I mean the existing social order, if that was not implied)

No, it was absolutely not implied, moreso within a discussion about destroying material property.

Of the existing social order, we should want to keep very few things - but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't want any order at all. In any way, we don't want slavery, or a feudal order, back, so we actually would consider some aspects of the existing order as improvements over former ways of social organisation. Let the fashos and the right wing "libertarians" argue against any forms of socialisation; we stand for higher forms of socialisation indeed.

Of the material things that exist under such the existing order, and which are, in their totality, result of our - and nobody else's - labour, we should consider keeping most of it, even though redefining much of their uses.

I think destroying a hospital or a school, or even a church, is stupid. Destroying a police precinct may be unavoidable. But I would rather morph the police precinct into a museum of police brutality, to remind us of how things used to be. The important thing, however, is, we built those things, they belong to us, and we should be the ones deciding on what use they should have.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

sometimes shit happens

Nope. Sometimes people do shit. We should try to avoid it.

Luís Henrique

[The Douche]

No, it was absolutely not implied, moreso within a discussion about destroying material property.

Of the existing social order, we should want to keep very few things - but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't want any order at all. In any way, we don't want slavery, or a feudal order, back, so we actually would consider some aspects of the existing order as improvements over former ways of social organisation. Let the fashos and the right wing "libertarians" argue against any forms of socialisation; we stand for higher forms of socialisation indeed.

Of the material things that exist under such the existing order, and which are, in their totality, result of our - and nobody else's - labour, we should consider keeping most of it, even though redefining much of their uses.

I think destroying a hospital or a school, or even a church, is stupid. Destroying a police precinct may be unavoidable. But I would rather morph the police precinct into a museum of police brutality, to remind us of how things used to be. The important thing, however, is, we built those things, they belong to us, and we should be the ones deciding on what use they should have.

Luís Henrique

Sorry, I assumed people understood what "make total destroy" meant. I suppose I just took that for granted.

[Luís Henrique]

Sorry, I assumed people understood what "make total destroy" meant. I suppose I just took that for granted.

To me, "total destroy" means total destroy. Or what reason is there to keep a building if we are to make "total destroy"?

Perhaps you need a better slogan?

Luís Henrique

[The Douche]

To me, "total destroy" means total destroy. Or what reason is there to keep a building if we are to make "total destroy"?

Perhaps you need a better slogan?

Luís Henrique

I did not invent, nor did I bring that slogan into this discussion.

But do you also think that the phrase "at war with the existant" means that I consider myself to be at war with literally every single thing that exists?(:laugh:)

[A Marxist Historian]

A diversity of tactics agreement means that you acknowledge you may not agree with certain acts that occur but you will not attempt to limit these acts or criticize them outside of healthy debate within the movement. It used to be required before lots of anarchist groups would do joint work in the anti-war movement.

Yes, well, what went down in Oakland shows that "diversity of tactics" is a bad idea that should be dropped.

The bloodthirsty brutality of the Oakland police, with their latest atrocity against *another* Iraqui vet, has largely erased the bad consequences of this little fiasco. Nonetheless, this should be a learning experience.

Tactics at mass marches should be determined by what the masses want, ideally democratically at mass meetings before hand. This "do your own thing" diversity of tactics crap has got to go.

This *does not* mean that tactics should always be "peaceful legal." Au contraire. When people get angry, that is often not what the masses want. In this case, however, it was, that's pretty obvious.

This also doesn't mean that the ultraleft Black Bloc fools should be purged from the movement as some advocate, or, worse yet, not defended against police brutality. An injury to one is an injury to all, no matter how stupid somebody might be.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Yeah, cops are totally tolerant of gender queer minorities, who should have no fear when they see the police.

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

Well of course not.

Yes, cops hate gays and like to mess them up. But not as much as they hate black people, and especially black men.

That's social reality in the USA, you need to realize it if you're living here. If you're posting from someplace else, well, maybe things are different where you are, I don't know.

See, we used to have something called slavery here. And the Civil War only fixed that partially.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Capital absorbs everything in this world, thats why its necessary to make total destroy, what part of this world do you want to maintain?

Others have answered this of course.

OK, so you're not in favor of burning all schools and hospitals to the ground, that's nice. So I won't throw any cheap shots at you, but try to get to what you are really arguing.

Does capital absorb everything in the world? Well, no.

The two fundamental classes of society are the capitalists and the proletarians. And they struggle for control over society, though lately the proletariat has been lying low, what with the demoralization caused by Stalinism and reinforced by the final collapse of the USSR, strangled by its Stalinist misleaders.

So no, destroying the whole social fabric is not what's called for. There are all sorts of social institutions that serve useful purposes, that shouldn't be destroyed but ripped out of the hands of the capitalists and their servants and cleaned up.

First and foremost the trade unions of course. The march on the port of Oakland was a baby step in that direction, as the people who really closed the port were the longshoremen themselves, which is not at all what the ILWU officers had in mind.

Much more significant than petty "diversity of tactics" anarchist theatrics.

So my question to you is, OK, you don't want to destroy schools and hospitals.

Do you want to destroy the ILWU?

-M.H.-

[The Douche]

Yes I want to destroy the ILWU, its a capitalist institution. But isn't there already an active thread on trade unionism on here? I think its the hipster communism thread.

[Geiseric]

I think property damage at this point is ultraleft, there isnt much political about smashing a bunch of things, blocking the entrence and stopping those things from being bought is what I think is a better idea. And if there's a march going on and some dumb fuck anarchist wants to throw a brick at some police, or do some other ultraleft petit bourgeois bullshit, I would stop them not for the safety of the cop or the good of the bourgeois institutions, like what KKE recently did in greece, but so the cops don't have an excuse to teargas me and other people.

[A Marxist Historian]

Yes I want to destroy the ILWU, its a capitalist institution. But isn't there already an active thread on trade unionism on here? I think its the hipster communism thread.

All those who want to destroy the ILWU, whatever their excuses are, are quite simply enemies of the working class. I could say much more, but won't. Enough said.

If there is an active thread on trade unionism called "hipster communism" of all things, that is sad, and illustrates unintentionally some of the basic problems with Revleft.

The way to get socialism is the rule of the working class, not the "hipsters," whatever they want to call themselves. And if the "hipsters" want to get in the way of that, they are cruisin' for a bruisin'

-M.H.-

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes, well, what went down in Oakland shows that "diversity of tactics" is a bad idea that should be dropped.

The bloodthirsty brutality of the Oakland police, with their latest atrocity against *another* Iraqui vet, has largely erased the bad consequences of this little fiasco. Nonetheless, this should be a learning experience.

Tactics at mass marches should be determined by what the masses want, ideally democratically at mass meetings before hand. This "do your own thing" diversity of tactics crap has got to go.

Dude I'm getting tired of this shit.

You can't get a mass movement of thousands of people to march according to rules which were "determined by what the masses want, ideally democratically at mass meetings before hand." It doesn't work... why?
- The "masses" want a lot of different things.
- Not everyone shows up to pow-wow beforehand.
- That sort of shit can take a long time and usually there isn't that much time to figure out what thousands of people want.

So what you do is accept that no matter what there will be a 'diversity of tactics' in any event involving thousands of people. Just the way it is.

Also, the police don't respond to 'those crazy kids in black smashing windows on their own.' The police operate according to a set plan and engage the masses in a uniform fashion no matter if they're in black or tie-die rainbow t-shirts.

- August

[The Douche]

All those who want to destroy the ILWU, whatever their excuses are, are quite simply enemies of the working class. I could say much more, but won't. Enough said.

If there is an active thread on trade unionism called "hipster communism" of all things, that is sad, and illustrates unintentionally some of the basic problems with Revleft.

The way to get socialism is the rule of the working class, not the "hipsters," whatever they want to call themselves. And if the "hipsters" want to get in the way of that, they are cruisin' for a bruisin'

-M.H.-

Read that thread, or don't. It makes no difference to me. But you are missing the point of the thread, it has nothing to do with "hipsters".

[Ele'ill]

Regarding other's tactics. Standing in solidarity with them but offering constructive criticisms. If they're going to make total destroy regardless perhaps others could give them ideas on how to do it better/safer/inclusively.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The rejection of 'diversity of tactics' is basically opportunism. Trying to focus on one path and set of actions so you can then criticize those who take another path of action which may be equally useful depending on conditions and context. It wont get you a revolution and it will only get you the support of people who have one track minds.

You can read marx all you want but if you try to use some text as a prescription for action without looking at context and conditions then you will fail.

in revolutionary struggle there are legal and illegal means, revolution itself is 'illegal' anyways. To criticize people for being smashy smashy while at the same time applauding people who only take legal means of action is bullshit. Even worse is criticizing and critiquing from behind a bookshelf.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Read that thread, or don't. It makes no difference to me. But you are missing the point of the thread, it has nothing to do with "hipsters".

It depends how you want to reach, interact and embed within the working class. We all know unions are a means of social control. Union locals though are were workers are and can be the focal point of struggle. There are many cases of this and as terrible as unions are it is folish to ignore this.

The idea of "hipster communism" is a deep alienation and hatred of all institutions of society. I understand and identify with this.To build the new society though we have to start somewhere. If one totally rejects unions are places where the working class gathers, why not just take this further and ignore workplaces as well. They are even more repressive and alienating than unions could ever be. We have to start somewhere.

as far as a "diversity of tactics" goes I see nothing wrong and a lot that's right in a little friendly (or not so friendly) warning to union busting businesses of whatever size in the right situation, with mass rage in the community. Same with a diversity of tactics visited upon the hated bank of one's choice-we have no choice in getting our lives ruined.

Oakland was/is "economic". Toronto, in which a black bloc torched pigmobiles to the delight of journalists. was more directly" political", easier for the media to marginalize and demonize.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

While most of the people on here understand the reasoning behind the property destruction (even if they disagree with it) there are a lot of people out there who do not and this is where I think people who participate in this form of protest slip up. We live in a world of instant information and I think it would be great if 'those-who-smash-windows' could get a press-release of some sort out there to explain themselves, even if its just on youtube or something. The first thing to pop up on google shouldn't be 'thugs smash shop windows' it should be 'property is theft'. Educate, organise, agitate.

[The Douche]

While most of the people on here understand the reasoning behind the property destruction (even if they disagree with it) there are a lot of people out there who do not and this is where I think people who participate in this form of protest slip up. We live in a world of instant information and I think it would be great if 'those-who-smash-windows' could get a press-release of some sort out there to explain themselves, even if its just on youtube or something. The first thing to pop up on google shouldn't be 'thugs smash shop windows' it should be 'property is theft'. Educate, organise, agitate.

Difficult to do that when our voices are marginalized by the bourgeois media and their lackeys in the movement who denounce us as "not part of the 99%".

Thats why diversity of tactics is a must. "We don't agree with it, but here is their explanation..."

[coda]

<<Colonoscopies aren't a whole hell of a lot of fun but if you're over 40 you should probably get one... Just sayin'.>>

hee ekk! I'll pass....

I just saw some footage of the whole thing. Hey Praxis, tell me, was a window broken at Whole Foods, as is being reported here? From what I could tell in the video, they were trying like hell but it wouldn't break. Looked like it was thick break resistant glass. But that thin Tiffany glass at the bank came down in a few large shards sounding like a symphony as it fell.

as far as violence and bodily harm.... the "ordinary" protesters were physically attacking the black bloc and the black bloc were not attacking them back! That pretty much dispels the notion that their actions aren't politically motivated and they they just want to break shit and kick ass for fun. They know what their targets are.

[RED DAVE]

Dude I'm getting tired of this shit.And many of us are tired of the whining of the supporters of the Black Bloc.


You can't get a mass movement of thousands of people to march according to rules which were "determined by what the masses want, ideally democratically at mass meetings before hand." It doesn't work... why?Because some people refuse to abide by democratic decision making.


The "masses" want a lot of different things.But there is no indication that, at this juncture, they want the tactics of the Black Bloc.


- Not everyone shows up to pow-wow beforehand.True but in this day and age, because of the Internet, communication and debate are easy to carry out in many ways, including online.


- That sort of shit can take a long time and usually there isn't that much time to figure out what thousands of people want.The tactics for the Oakland actions were worked out far in advance. Problem is, some people invented some new ones on the spot.


So what you do is accept that no matter what there will be a 'diversity of tactics' in any event involving thousands of people. Just the way it is.No, what you do is accept the decisions made beforehand.


Also, the police don't respond to 'those crazy kids in black smashing windows on their own.' The police operate according to a set plan and engage the masses in a uniform fashion no matter if they're in black or tie-die rainbow t-shirts.Nonsense. That's just a justification for not abiding by decisions made.

RED DAVE

[coda]

fuck, i forgot to write my whole point....which is.. I think the black bloc should reorganize their tactics and consider going back to the classic anonymous small covert cell units and definitely not allow themselves to be filmed! And leave the open street action to fighting off the pig offensive.

[The Douche]

Because some people refuse to abide by democratic decision making.

Dave, the thing is, the GA voted to endorse a diversity of tactics, and also accepted that the anti-capitalist march would contain "autonomous actions".

The individuals who are denouncing, publicly, the tactics of the black bloc are the ones refusing to abide by the democratic process.

[coda]

<<But there is no indication that, at this juncture, they want the tactics of the Black Bloc.>>

I agree.. I don't think the black bloc should be tagging a long on the OWS marches. However, i think as a group the bloc should march together with their own message.

[The Douche]

<<But there is no indication that, at this juncture, they want the tactics of the Black Bloc.>>

I agree.. I don't think the black bloc should be tagging a long on the OWS marches. However, i think as a group the bloc should march together with their own message.

That was the purpose of the anti-capitalist march.


Oh heavens to betsy, people are attacking the facades of capital on the anti-capitalist march?! Whoduh thunk it!?

[RED DAVE]

Dave, the thing is, the GA voted to endorse a diversity of tactics, and also accepted that the anti-capitalist march would contain "autonomous actions".

The individuals who are denouncing, publicly, the tactics of the black bloc are the ones refusing to abide by the democratic process.Do you really think that the Occupy Oakland GA, knowing full well that there was going to be union involvement, was authorizing any tactic at all?

Did the question of violence come up in the discussion of "autonomous actions"? Did members of the black bloc bring up the subject of street violence, the occupation of the building, etc.? Were you there? Did you bring it up?

Because, in my opinion, if there was not an explicit or a very strong implicit idea floating around that what was done was within the realm of acceptable "autonomous actions," then the block bloc took matters for too much into its own hands.

If there was an explicit or strongly implicit idea that street violence was within the realm of acceptable "diversity of tactics," then what was done was cool. Otherwise, it was not. (I personally would, at this stage of this very new game, urge nonviolence.)

A "diversity of tactics" doesn't mean everything. Do you, for example, think that tossing a molotov cocktail or two would have been okay?

In the official notice for the November 17 action of Occupy Wall Street, voted on by the GA, the word "nonviolent" appears. If you were a member of the black bloc in New York, would you abide by this? Would you urge others to abide by it? Would yo try to prevent others from engaging in violent acts?

Think about it.

And, by the way, anyone who is engaged in this discussion, who is not involved in their local OWS, either for the black bloc or against, is engaging in armchair revolutionizing.

RED DAVE

[Fawkes]

Yes, cops hate gays and like to mess them up. But not as much as they hate black people, and especially black men.



When did leftists start quantifying which groups face worse oppression that others? Not only is it impossible to reach an answer to that, it's detrimental in that it serves to further the divisions between various oppressed populations. I'm not about fighting the oppression olympics to see who has it worst, I'm about fighting the structures that make it so certain people are systematically disadvantaged.


See, we used to have something called slavery here. And the Civil War only fixed that partially.
But no, the American Indians had it worse because they faced complete genocide. Or wait, Japanese immigrants had it worse because they were put in internment camps 80 years after the Civil War. But wait, queer people have it so bad that up until a couple decades ago, there was nowhere in the country where they could be open about their sexuality or deviate from their gender roles without fear of imprisonment/death.

...see how unproductive that line of reasoning is?

[coda]

<<That was the purpose of the anti-capitalist march. Oh heavens to betsy, people are attacking the facades of capital on the anti-capitalist march?! Whoduh thunk it!?>>

Now I'm totally confused. Did they march down with the intention of breaking the windows? It didn't look like that in the video where the ows were attacking the black bloc to prevent it. right now, i think black bloc tactics are way too radical for the ows peeps..

[A Marxist Historian]

Dude I'm getting tired of this shit.

You can't get a mass movement of thousands of people to march according to rules which were "determined by what the masses want, ideally democratically at mass meetings before hand." It doesn't work... why?
- The "masses" want a lot of different things.
- Not everyone shows up to pow-wow beforehand.
- That sort of shit can take a long time and usually there isn't that much time to figure out what thousands of people want.

So what you do is accept that no matter what there will be a 'diversity of tactics' in any event involving thousands of people. Just the way it is.

Also, the police don't respond to 'those crazy kids in black smashing windows on their own.' The police operate according to a set plan and engage the masses in a uniform fashion no matter if they're in black or tie-die rainbow t-shirts.

- August

In a mass movement, you need diversity of political ideas, that's a democratic necessity. But diversity of tactics? Then you lose, simple as that.

Lesson of history.

Of course there'll be some "diversity of tactics," but if what is happening is a *struggle vs. the enemy,* not just a buncha people marching around to make themselves feel good and maybe busting some windows now and then, yes you need unity in action, with everybody pointed in the same direction. Those working in counterposition to what the masses want need to be disciplined if they get to far out of line.

Can't figure out what people want in advance? That's why you need political organizations leading the movement with history and experience, not fly-by-night anarchist collectives, if we ever want to win. Don't like that? Well, life is not fair, live with it.

-M.H.-

[Os Cangaceiros]

And, by the way, anyone who is engaged in this discussion, who is not involved in their local OWS, either for the black bloc or against, is engaging in armchair revolutionizing.

RED DAVE

I mean, that is kind of what's done on this site...many people comment on contemporary and historical events that they themselves weren't part of.

[A Marxist Historian]

When did leftists start quantifying which groups face worse oppression that others? Not only is it impossible to reach an answer to that, it's detrimental in that it serves to further the divisions between various oppressed populations. I'm not about fighting the oppression olympics to see who has it worst, I'm about fighting the structures that make it so certain people are systematically disadvantaged.


But no, the American Indians had it worse because they faced complete genocide. Or wait, Japanese immigrants had it worse because they were put in internment camps 80 years after the Civil War. But wait, queer people have it so bad that up until a couple decades ago, there was nowhere in the country where they could be open about their sexuality or deviate from their gender roles without fear of imprisonment/death.

...see how unproductive that line of reasoning is?

Well, no sense squabbling about who is more oppressed, but basic understanding of how America works is necessary, if you want to do something about it and not just complain.

Did American Indians have it worse when they were subject to genocide? Of course, but now they're not. Japanese? They had it bad during WWII, but nowadays they do pretty well.

Gay people at least *could* go into the closet and hide. Never an option open to black people.

No need to make a big production out of it, but these basic facts do need to be understood.

Racial oppression, i.e. oppression of black people, is the basis of American society, the second most important thing to understand after the basic labor/capitalist nexus itself, that makes everything go.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

That was the purpose of the anti-capitalist march.


Oh heavens to betsy, people are attacking the facades of capital on the anti-capitalist march?! Whoduh thunk it!?

When you have a mass movement, time to drop the secret code words that nobody who hasn't been to all the meetings understands.

When I went to the mass march on Wednesday, I didn't go on the anti-capitalist march 'cuz I had some other things to take care of, but I almost did 'cuz I thought, cool, here's a march that's explicitly against capitalism! Wow, neat!

I had no notion that it was all just a code word for wasting your time busting a few windows.

I'm sure that the vast majority of the tens of thousands of angry Oaklanders who turned out to march to the Port of Oakland and shut it down were just as uninformed as I was.

-M.H.-

[RED DAVE]

And, by the way, anyone who is engaged in this discussion, who is not involved in their local OWS, either for the black bloc or against, is engaging in armchair revolutionizing.
I mean, that is kind of what's done on this site...many people comment on contemporary and historical events that they themselves weren't part of.The question is, for Americans or people living in the USA (or Canada), why aren't you involved?

Sure there are local conditions (or personal situations) where such involvement isn't possible. Some occupations are FUBAR, and some people live in the sticks. Some people are ill or have some kind of personal challenge. But otherwise, if you ain't got an occupation, you should be working to build one.

This is a test for who is a revolutionary and who is full of shit.

RED DAVE

[Fawkes]

Well, no sense squabbling about who is more oppressed

Then why'd you just proceed to do so?


Racial oppression, i.e. oppression of black people, is the basis of American society, the second most important thing to understand after the basic labor/capitalist nexus itself, that makes everything go.
Have you ever heard of sexism before? If we're really gonna try to argue over which modes of oppression are the most pervasive and have the longest history, sexism's got it. Still, like I said, that's irrelevant.


Did American Indians have it worse when they were subject to genocide? Of course, but now they're not. Japanese? They had it bad during WWII, but nowadays they do pretty well.
Have you ever been to a reservation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_poverty) before? Take a drive through Pine Ridge and tell me the genocide's over. And bullshit about the Japanese comment too. Sure, they may on average experience more financial success that most "minorities", but racism against East Asian people is horrifically rampant, we've just internalized it as something else due to the notion of the model minority.


Gay people at least *could* go into the closet and hide.
Don't give me that bullshit, I get enough of it already.

[The Douche]

Do you really think that the Occupy Oakland GA, knowing full well that there was going to be union involvement, was authorizing any tactic at all?

A diversity of tactics agreement is not the same as "authorizing a tactic".


Did the question of violence come up in the discussion of "autonomous actions"? Did members of the black bloc bring up the subject of street violence, the occupation of the building, etc.? Were you there? Did you bring it up?

Do you know what it means to agree to a diversity of tactics and to agree that an event will include autonomous actions? Do you? Cause I do, and every tired, old worn out, ex-hippy, red diaper baby, revolutionary has-been turned liberal I worked with in UFPJ knew what it meant. And so did every controlling, jerk of a dominating Stalinist in ANSWER. They knew that it meant when we broke off of their sanctioned protest and blocked traffic, built barricades, attacked police lines, smashed windows etc, that our actions were autonomous (oh, notice that?) of their organization, and that while they disagreed with them, they acknowledged that movements must be diverse (oh shit!) in their tactics (hey look at that). And that it behooved them, and the movement to stand in solidarity (though not endorsement) of our actions, instead of marching lockstep with the bourgeoise in condemnation.

If you agree to a principle you can't just turn your back on it afterwards.

Also, do not pretend like there are not people integrally involved in the facilitation process, and in the GA who are anarchists, or black bloc, or who are pro-property destruction.


A "diversity of tactics" doesn't mean everything. Do you, for example, think that tossing a molotov cocktail or two would have been okay?

Would I throw a moltov? Nah, its not worth the risk in my opinion, mostly because I don't trust the peace police to not turn me over to the cops. But if somebody did I wouldn't join forces with Rupert fucking Murdoch and bad mouth them.


In the official notice for the November 17 action of Occupy Wall Street, voted on by the GA, the word "nonviolent" appears. If you were a member of the black bloc in New York, would you abide by this? Would you urge others to abide by it? Would yo try to prevent others from engaging in violent acts?


Smashing a window is not violent.


And, by the way, anyone who is engaged in this discussion, who is not involved in their local OWS, either for the black bloc or against, is engaging in armchair revolutionizing.

Are you going to stop talking about Nepal?

[RED DAVE]

Do you really think that the Occupy Oakland GA, knowing full well that there was going to be union involvement, was authorizing any tactic at all?
A diversity of tactics agreement is not the same as "authorizing a tactic".Okay, do you think that under this thing that you've invented called "a diversity of tactics agreement," it authorized any tactic at all?


Did the question of violence come up in the discussion of "autonomous actions"? Did members of the black bloc bring up the subject of street violence, the occupation of the building, etc.? Were you there? Did you bring it up
Do you know what it means to agree to a diversity of tactics and to agree that an event will include autonomous actions? Do you?I think I do, and before I was party to such an agreement, I would lay out some rules as to what "autonomy" and "diversity" cover.


Cause I do, and every tired, old worn out, ex-hippy, red diaper baby, revolutionary has-been turned liberal I worked with in UFPJ knew what it meant. And so did every controlling, jerk of a dominating Stalinist in ANSWER.We have only your word for it, and, frankly, I don't believe that if these people are as politically flabby as you make them out to be, they wouldn't be very wary of what they were agreeing to in terms of "autonomy" and "diversity of tactics." If you're trying to say that they sanctioned street violence, I don't believe you.


They knew that it meant when we broke off of their sanctioned protest and blocked traffic, built barricades, attacked police lines, smashed windows etc, that our actions were autonomous (oh, notice that?) of their organizationOh they knew what it meant all right. But that doesn't mean, to use your word, that they "sanctioned" it.


and that while they disagreed with them, they acknowledged that movements must be diverse (oh shit!) in their tactics (hey look at that).Again, you are trying to convince us that they approved of the violence in advance, and I don't believe you.


And that it behooved them, and the movement to stand in solidarity (though not endorsement) of our actions, instead of marching lockstep with the bourgeoise in condemnation.As to the bourgeoisie, they didn't "march[] lockstep" with them. There's lots things the bourgeoisie is not in favor of, that most normal people don't think is cool, like, say, child molestation. Being opposed to that doesn't put you in concert with the bourgeoisie.

That bit of baiting being out of the way, the old hippies, etc., that you condemn so stupidly, had no responsibility to "stand in solidarity" with your actions if they went outside of an explicit or strongly implicit agreement. And you have not shown that either one existed.


If you agree to a principle you can't just turn your back on it afterwards.That's true, and you have not demonstrated that any principled agreement existed to let the black bloc engage in street violence. Frankly, if the leadership is anything like the types you so graphically described above, they would be the last group to agree to autonomy and a diversity of tactics that included street violence.


Also, do not pretend like there are not people integrally involved in the facilitation process, and in the GA who are anarchists, or black bloc, or who are pro-property destruction.I'm not so pretending. You are pretending that the leadership of Occupy Oakland somehow sanctioned your actions. You haven't shown that in the slightest.


A "diversity of tactics" doesn't mean everything. Do you, for example, think that tossing a molotov cocktail or two would have been okay
Would I throw a moltov? Nah, its not worth the risk in my opinion, mostly because I don't trust the peace police to not turn me over to the cops. But if somebody did I wouldn't join forces with Rupert fucking Murdoch and bad mouth them.I wouldn't join with Murdoch either, but I sure as shit don't want an irresponsible asshole who would throw one around any action I'm involved in. Apparently, though, if you could do it and get away with it, that's cool.

Which just goes to show that all your shit about "autonomy" and "diversity of tactics" is bullshit. There is no way in a zillion years, even if the powers-that-be in Occupy Oakland agreed to some brick tossing, etc., they would agree to something like molotov cocktails, so they're outside any agreement. But you would use them anyway, in spite of any agreement, if you could get away with it. So all your mouth about agreements is just that. There was no understanding that street violence was okay.


In the official notice for the November 17 action of Occupy Wall Street, voted on by the GA, the word "nonviolent" appears. If you were a member of the black bloc in New York, would you abide by this? Would you urge others to abide by it? Would yo try to prevent others from engaging in violent acts
Smashing a window is not violent.You're out of your fucking mind and a political infant.


And, by the way, anyone who is engaged in this discussion, who is not involved in their local OWS, either for the black bloc or against, is engaging in armchair revolutionizing
Are you going to stop talking about NepalNo. Why should I. Revolutionary criticism is the prerogative of the Left. I'm not an armchair revolutionary. I also don't advocate that the occupations become part of the bourgeois government, which is what the Nepalese Maoists did.

Occupy Kathmandu would be in opposition to the Maoist government, which would probably oblige by sending out the cops to roust them.

RED DAVE

[The Douche]

Dave I don't have the patience to talk to you, not tonight anyways, its been a long day at work and this is not helping me quit smoking.

I am not the only person who knows what a diversity of tactics is, and I certainly did not invent it. Surely you can understand that new concepts have emerged since you were in the middle of the action back in the day.

I'll probably reply to your post tomorrow though.

[black magick hustla]

they are just fucking windows lol. why does every old trot makes a huge deal out of this

[RED DAVE]

Dave I don't have the patience to talk to you, not tonight anyways, its been a long day at work and this is not helping me quit smoking.

I am not the only person who knows what a diversity of tactics is, and I certainly did not invent it. Surely you can understand that new concepts have emerged since you were in the middle of the action back in the day.

I'll probably reply to your post tomorrow though.Uhh, some quick points: I am as engaged in the occupations are you are, so enough of the "back in the day" shit. I know what a diversity of tactics is. What I am saying is that whatever diversity of tactics agreement existed, it did not cover the actions of the black bloc. The burden of proof that it did, lies on you.


they are just fucking windows lol. why does every old trot makes a huge deal out of thisBecause it is disruptive of larger movement, and enshrines a principle of uncontrolled individual action over democratic responsibility.

As to my age, would you like to stand up in from of the mods and admins to a charge of agism? If you don't, shut the fuck up.

RED DAVE

[black magick hustla]

As to my age, would you like to stand up in from of the mods and admins to a charge of agism? If you don't, shut the fuck up.

RED DAVE

weren't you the one throwing terms like adolescent and infant? our shit stinks the same man

[RED DAVE]

As to my age, would you like to stand up in from of the mods and admins to a charge of agism? If you don't, shut the fuck up.
weren't you the one throwing terms like adolescent and infant? our shit stinks the same manNo it doesn't. In general, I refer to what I believe to be adolescent and infantile politics: by which I mean immature, impulsive and unthoughtout, which can occur at any age. You are referring to my chronological age.

RED DAVE

[The Douche]

So after thinking about this a little I don't see how we can even have discussion on this topic because your understanding of things is so divorced from mine, Dave.

1) You believe the breaking of property to be "violence". I can't understand this, and I won't agree to that language. The only violence I've seen in Oakland is by the police, directed towards protesters, and by certain protesters directed towards other protesters, when they swung fists, poles, and other objects at anarchists in order to defend the private property of a capitalist institution, even while shouting "you can't do that, its not your property!".

2) You are operating off of a definition of a diversity of tactics agreement that is totally foreign to me, and to the movement as a whole, I've tried to explain to you want it is but you refuse to accept it, and instead have put words in my mouth.

And to illustrate that what I have tried to tell you about a diversity of tactics, here are other people that understand it as I do, and as I tried to explain it to you:

http://www.trainingforchange.org/diversity_of_tactics (some liberal hacks, who in this article argue against diversity of tactics because it enables the "violent" protesters)

http://www.thechangeagency.org/03_enews/newsletter.asp?ID=133 (more liberal types complaining about diversity of tactics because it "allows" "violent" protesters to bring down harsh repression)

http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/Blog/diversity-of-tactics-what-does-it-mean/blog/12092/ (And finally, greenpeace, agreeing with my definition of diversity of tactics.)


So have we resolved that I am actually correct about what a diversity of tactics agreement is? Will you stop putting words in my mouth like you did here:


I'm not so pretending. You are pretending that the leadership of Occupy Oakland somehow sanctioned your actions. You haven't shown that in the slightest.


Because I've tried to make it explicitly clear to you that a diversity of tactics agreement means the exact opposite of the GA "sanction"ing any actions.

The purpose of a diversity of tactics agreement is that you are acknowledging the fact that individuals will use tactics that as a whole, you all do not agree on.


Until we can resolve these issues (1. what constitutes "violence" and 2. what is a diversity of tactics and what does it mean), obviously no discussion can take place.

[RED DAVE]

So after thinking about this a little I don't see how we can even have discussion on this topic because your understanding of things is so divorced from mine, Dave.This is unfortunate. However, I frankly put this down to your political inexperience. Contrary to what you believe, the current situation, while new is not unprecedented. The same issues were present in the late 60s and early 70s.


1) You believe the breaking of property to be "violence". I can't understand this, and I won't agree to that language.Then you are inventing your own version of the English language. If you own a car and I smash in the window, I have committed violence against your car.


The only violence I've seen in Oakland is by the police, directed towards protesters, and by certain protesters directed towards other protesters, when they swung fists, poles, and other objects at anarchists in order to defend the private property of a capitalist institution, even while shouting "you can't do that, its not your property!".I'm not going to get drawn into the debate the way you frame it. As far as I am concerned, this is violence.


2) You are operating off of a definition of a diversity of tactics agreement that is totally foreign to me, and to the movement as a whole, I've tried to explain to you want it is but you refuse to accept it, and instead have put words in my mouth.I don't think that you speak for "the movement as a whole." I am active in Occupy Wall Street, and I have yet to hear the term "diversity of tactics" used in the way that you use it. In New York, it is used to denote a broad range of tactics within a common agreement as to the limits of those tactics. It is not used to indicate that anything goes.

More later.

RED DAVE

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'd just like to say that the issue of Age should be left out. Keep it political.

[The Douche]

However, I frankly put this down to your political inexperience.

I am not politically inexperienced, I resent the accusation. It would appear to me that you are inexperienced since you don't even know what a diversity of tactics means. But I wouldn't say that, because you've told me you have been politically active for years, and I have enough respect not to call you a liar, it only speaks to your character than you will not offer me the same respect.


Contrary to what you believe, the current situation, while new is not unprecedented.

I have not said that this debate or this situation is either new or unprecedented. Again, you're putting words in my mouth.


I have committed violence against your car.

No, you've done damage to my car. Violence can only be perpetrated on things that are alive, to suggest that violence can be done to non-living things to strip meaning from the word.


I don't think that you speak for "the movement as a whole." I am active in Occupy Wall Street, and I have yet to hear the term "diversity of tactics" used in the way that you use it. In New York, it is used to denote a broad range of tactics within a common agreement as to the limits of those tactics. It is not used to indicate that anything goes.


Well at least now everybody can see what an unprincipled discussion partner you are. I provide very clear evidence that people (even people on the other side of this debate, people who do not support property damage, people who do not support a diversity of tactics) agree with my definition of diversity of tactics, and you simply ignore it.

You accuse me of making up my own definition for what a diversity of tactics is, then, when I prove you wrong, you ignore it.

Dave, if you're against diversity of tactics thats fine. But the fact is, diversity of tactics enables property destruction, the Oakland GA agreed to a diversity of tactics, and you know what... I haven't seen a statement from the actual General Assembly denouncing the acts, only statements by individuals. And furthermore, the OO website has come out and endorsed/encouraged the occupation of vacant buildings for community use, as of November the 6th. (http://www.occupyoakland.org/2011/11/declaration-of-solidarity-with-neighborhood-reclamations-103111/)

[RED DAVE]

Violence can only be perpetrated on things that are alive, to suggest that violence can be done to non-living things to strip meaning from the word.Learn to use English correctly.


vi·o·lence -- noun:

behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force.(emph added)

RED DAVE

[The Douche]

Ok Dave, sure, breaking a window is violent, and I support violence, and am a terrible violent person. Now that we've established that.


Please carry on with the discussion re: diversity of tactics. I have demonstrated the following:

1) Diversity of tactics agreements provide the space for all actions (including ones which may be deemed violent).
2) A diversity of tactics was endorsed by the GA of occupy Oakland.
3) Any public denounciations of any act carried out is a violation of the diversity of tactics agreement, and is therefor a violation of the democratic process of the GA.
4) The GA has not denounced any of the actions.
5) The GA has actually endorsed the action of occupation of vacant properties (as done by the black bloc on the night in question).


So I put it to you, that the black bloc has actually played a positive role in this occupation, and pushed it in new interesting directions which are more radical and confront capital in a healthy way that makes space for a radical, communist critique of property relations. (their window smashing did nothing positive or negative however, but you were also upset about their occupation of a vacant building)

[Ele'ill]

nevermind I'm tired of discussing this topic

[the last donut of the night]

ugh this is why this place sucks

[RED DAVE]

Ok Dave, sure, breaking a window is violent, and I support violence, and am a terrible violent person. Now that we've established that.We've also established that you are messing around intellectually with something that's very serious.


Please carry on with the discussion re: diversity of tactics. I have demonstrated the following:

1) Diversity of tactics agreements provide the space for all actions (including ones which may be deemed violent).No. What you have established is that such an agreement might include such a space. And, frankly, any group that launches an agreement that might include uncontrolled violence is out of their fucking mind.


2) A diversity of tactics was endorsed by the GA of occupy Oakland.This is what you are claiming. I would like some proof that (a) such an endorsement was made and (b) it explicitly included a provision for violence.


3) Any public denounciations of any act carried out is a violation of the diversity of tactics agreement, and is therefor a violation of the democratic process of the GA.You have yet to establish that such an agreement was made. And, in any event, if it was made, it was a dumb-ass agreement and anyone is free to criticize it.


4) The GA has not denounced any of the actions.This may well be, but that doesn't make for a good agreement or good actions.


5) The GA has actually endorsed the action of occupation of vacant properties (as done by the black bloc on the night in question) (their window smashing did nothing positive or negative however, but you were also upset about their occupation of a vacant building)Uhh, somehow I don't think that this endorsement meant an occupation in the middle of a demonstration.


So I put it to you, that the black bloc has actually played a positive role in this occupationThat is a matter of opinion. Mine is that the adolescent tactics of a bunch of people dressed up in Halloween outfits and trying to prove how bad they are played a negative role.


and pushed it in new interesting directions which are more radical and confront capital in a healthy way that makes space for a radical, communist critique of property relations.In my opinion, none of this is so. The direction is a blind alley; the critique is sensationalist and under the control of a minority rather than the masses, rather than solid and democratic.

I will certainly push at the GA at Occupy Wall Street that no such diversity of tactics agreement be acceded to.

RED DAVE

[The Douche]

Dave you are being very dishonest in this discussion, I don't appreciate it.

I have clearly demonstrated to you what a diversity of tactics is accepted to mean, you refuse to accept it even though I have shown it beyond a shadow of a doubt (also notice how not a single other poster has agreed with your non-definition of a diversity of tactics).

Oh and by the way, here's a quote from the SF Examiner that might be of interest to you, though I suspect you'll brush it aside, like you've brushed aside every other answer I have provided you, because it does not mesh with your view.


Before Wednesday's massive turnout, Occupy Oakland had adopted several official positions, but none stating that the leaderless group was committed to non-violence. Like anti-Wall Street encampments in other cities, the Oakland offshoot adopts stands at evening meetings known as a General Assembly that are held four times a week.

Among the stances taken by Occupy Oakland was one encouraging participants to use a "diversity of tactics" outside the main encampment to register dissatisfaction with the economic status quo.

As an example, it noted that during confrontations with police, some protesters might want to have calm conversations and urge officers to be non-violent, while others might choose to express their anger by yelling, trying to remove police barriers, or disrupting traffic.


Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/bay-area/2011/11/occupy-oakland-protesters-city-officials-take-stock-costs#ixzz1dB6lrIvU

[Die Neue Zeit]

Has Occupy Oakland issued any list of demands yet like a couple other Occupy movements?

[RED DAVE]

I will reply to cmoney's last post shortly, but, in the meantime, check this out, first posted elsewhere by KurtFFB.

http://news.yahoo.com/occupy-oakland-debates-violence-black-bloc-anarchists-100000474.html;_ylt=AmhsUJ6QU2HUTTDM8jlOoWGs0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTNsNHRoMjNzBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBGUARwa2cDNm IxZTVmYTctNTQ4Mi0zZjUyLWJiZmYtOGMwZTg1ZDcxODk5BHBv cwM3BHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyAzQ3YmNjZjMwLTA5ZjEtMT FlMS1iYzc3LTg5MDg4ODI3YjFmYw--;_ylg=X3oDMTFpNzk0NjhtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Dave you are being very dishonest in this discussion, I don't appreciate it.Actually, it's you who e being dishonest and in a very interesting way: you bluff. You make strong, positive statements of fact or belief and assert that they are true when, in fact, they're not.

An example: When we were discussing violence, above. You said:



Violence can only be perpetrated on things that are alive, to suggest that violence can be done to non-living things to strip meaning from the word.Nice, strong, clear statement. Except it was bullshit. Then, when you were caught out, you said:


Ok Dave, sure, breaking a window is violent, and I support violence, and am a terrible violent person. Now that we've established that.Which is another bluff. You basically asserted that what you said wasn't important, I was nit-picking, etc. But please remember that words have meaning and when you say, "I support violence and am a terrible violent person," why shouldn't I take you seriously?


I have clearly demonstrated to you what a diversity of tactics is accepted to meanNo you haven't, and this is another bluff. I pointed out to you that in New York, a "diversity of tactics" does not mean violence per se. That such an agreement, that violence is part of the "diversity of tactics," was never made by the Occupy Oakland General Assembly.


you refuse to accept it even though I have shown it beyond a shadow of a doubtThis is again a bluff. You have shown no such thing.

Show us that the Oakland GA passed a motion calling for a diversity of tactics and that it was clearly understood that such a motion included an acceptance of violence. You can't.


(also notice how not a single other poster has agreed with your non-definition of a diversity of tactics).And no one in this exchange has agreed with your assertion that the Oakland GA passed a motion that, implicitly or explicitly, accepted violence as part of a diversity of tactics. You just bluffed again.


Oh and by the way, here's a quote from the SF Examiner that might be of interest to you, though I suspect you'll brush it aside, like you've brushed aside every other answer I have provided you, because it does not mesh with your view.Actually, it's a very nice quote that disproves what you said. Again, you are bluffing.


Before Wednesday's massive turnout, Occupy Oakland had adopted several official positions, but none stating that the leaderless group was committed to non-violence. Like anti-Wall Street encampments in other cities, the Oakland offshoot adopts stands at evening meetings known as a General Assembly that are held four times a week.

Among the stances taken by Occupy Oakland was one encouraging participants to use a "diversity of tactics" outside the main encampment to register dissatisfaction with the economic status quo.

As an example, it noted that during confrontations with police, some protesters might want to have calm conversations and urge officers to be non-violent, while others might choose to express their anger by yelling, trying to remove police barriers, or disrupting traffic.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/bay-...#ixzz1dB6lrIvU (http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/bay-area/2011/11/occupy-oakland-protesters-city-officials-take-stock-costs#ixzz1dB6lrIvU)(emph added)

If you can find a reference to the kind of violence that was actually occurred, please show it. "[Y]elling, trying to remove police barriers, or disrupting traffic" are not the same as busting windows. That was a bluff on your part.

So, to come back to your opening remark, that I was "dishonest," it was you who were and are dishonest, and you keep trying to cover it with a bluff.

RED DAVE

[PhoenixAsh]

right...how exactly is removing police barricades not the same as breaking windows from a bank? Because I do not see it.

Seems to me that argument is on incredibly shaky grounds....since we are talking about property here. In one instance city property and in the other private property...but property none the less. And one of a class enemy. Not to mention that they are both detsructive towards places and points of authority.

Seems to me that you can not exclude one or the other of DA on the basis of arguments of exclusivity.

[Martin Blank]

I will certainly push at the GA at Occupy Wall Street that no such diversity of tactics agreement be acceded to.

Really?! You know what that means, right? You know that rejecting a DOT agreement locks in "non-violence" and pacifism as the only accepted tactics, right? You know that will lead to self-described revolutionaries -- not just anarchists, but communists as well -- being fingered to the cops by the liberal pacifists, right? You also know it will bolster the power of the liberals within the #Occupy movement, and thus increase the chances of this movement becoming just another electoral vehicle for the Democratic Party, right?

Is this really where you stand, Dave? Is this really what you want?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ See, this is the problem with cheap sloganeering. I know Red Dave's intent is to exclude Black Bloc tactics, but AFAIK cheap sloganeering can't differentiate between the pacifists and those inclined towards civil disobedience.

[RED DAVE]

right...how exactly is removing police barricades not the same as breaking windows from a bank? Because I do not see it.I know you don't see it. Nevertheless, huge numbers of people see it, and, therefore, their perception has to be taken into account.

If our purpose is to build a revolutionary movement to overthrow capitalism, and not to play Halloween street games, then the perceptions of the masses, wrong as they may be, have to be taken into account. If we want to change those perceptions, then we have to evaluate whether or not a particular tactic or strategy does that.

It is abundantly clear that busting windows and occupying property in the middle of a demonstration, at this time, does nothing positive to change the opinion of people towards the occupations or towards building a revolutonary movement. You may argue that it does, but, frankly, the burden of proof is on you.


Seems to me that argument is on incredibly shaky grounds....It seems to you. Are we talking about your perception of a reality or your opinion based on your ideology?


since we are talking about property here. In one instance city property and in the other private property...I assume you are talking about the bank on one hand and the building where the attempted occupation took place on the other.


but property none the less.Please recall that, as above, most people who we are trying to reach, including the vast bulk of workers, do not necessarily share your perception. They see public property and private property as something different. Again, if we want to change that perception, any tactic or strategy has to be evaluated as to effectiveness. In my opinion, busting the window of a bank and breaking into public property during a mass demo does not change this perception.


And one of a class enemy. Not to mention that they are both detsructive towards places and points of authority.

Seems to me that you can not exclude one or the other of DA on the basis of arguments of exclusivity.No, I exclude them on the grounds that it is demonstrative that right now, at this stage of movement building the tactics employed did not work to change mass opinion.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

I will certainly push at the GA at Occupy Wall Street that no such diversity of tactics agreement be acceded to.
Really?!Really.


Really?!You know what that means, right?I think so. It means that anyone engaging in adventurism is doing so in violation of a diversity of tactics agreement.


Really?!You know that rejecting a DOT agreement locks in "non-violence" and pacifism as the only accepted tactics, right?That's right. And at this stage of the game, to engage in aggressive tactics on the part of a small group is irresponsble. It speaks of ego politics, not revolutionary politics.


Really?!You know that will lead to self-described revolutionaries -- not just anarchists, but communists as well -- being fingered to the cops by the liberal pacifists, right?No, it means that "self-described revolutionaries" need to keep their tactics within the agreement. As to fingering them, I am opposed to that of course.


Really?!You also know it will bolster the power of the liberals within the #Occupy movementBullshit. What you are doing is setting up a counter-position of the tactics of liberals and the tactics of "self-described revolutionaries" as if those are the only forces. There are others, myself included, who reject, publicly, vehemently and actively the tactics of the liberals while rejecting the adventurism of the "self-described revolutionaries." Self-described indeed. I think "Halloween revolutionaries" is a better term. And, of course, you are not taking into account the fact that among the "self-described revolutionaries" may well be crazies, people whose politics are completely irresponsible and agents provocateurs.


and thus increase the chances of this movement becoming just another electoral vehicle for the Democratic Party, right?right! Oppose the Black Black and join the Democrats. You have a lot to learn politically.


Is this really where you stand, Dave? Is this really what you want?No. And as one of the most active people on revleft with regard to Occupy Wall Street, I've demonstrated that quite well. It takes more than a few busted windows to make a revolution.

RED DAVE

[PhoenixAsh]

I know you don't see it. Nevertheless, huge numbers of people see it, and, therefore, their perception has to be taken into account.

Why?

There is a purpose to this very obvious question.



If our purpose is to build a revolutionary movement to overthrow capitalism, and not to play Halloween street games, then the perceptions of the masses, wrong as they may be, have to be taken into account. If we want to change those perceptions, then we have to evaluate whether or not a particular tactic or strategy does that.

Nobody is currently building a revolutionary movement. And the position of the Occupy movements in general is the building of a mass movement which is currently going to be a pacifist and reformist movement which is dominated by liberals and social democratic tactics of change, change and more change...but not too much change.



It is abundantly clear that busting windows and occupying property in the middle of a demonstration, at this time, does nothing positive to change the opinion of people towards the occupations or towards building a revolutonary movement. You may argue that it does, but, frankly, the burden of proof is on you.

The problem is that it doesn't do anything positive because people are arguing against it instead of for it....instead of arguing to include these tactics people who should know better argue against it on the basis of popular opinion. But popular opinion is against the radical movements. Simple as that. It is going to stay that way untill enough voices speak out against the reformists and the conformists and the liberals and all the people who keep the movement well an truely established within the capitalist system.

And no...the burden of proof is NOT on me. The simple fact is that the burden of proof is on YOU to provide the grounds of WHY you are lending your voice to conformists and rerformists and in so doing only perpetuate the majority notion that capitalism can be changed by peacefully allowing cops to beat you to a pulp and shoot you down in the streets....and infact does nothing to actually bring about anything good. THAT strategy never ever, ever worked to get shit accomplished in a satisfactory way....we know...because this is what ALWAYS happens.



It seems to you. Are we talking about your perception of a reality or your opinion based on your ideology?

No on reality....not my perception, on reality because in this society there is no legal consequence difference.


I assume you are talking about the bank on one hand and the building where the attempted occupation took place on the other.

I am talking about things in general.


Please recall that, as above, most people who we are trying to reach, including the vast bulk of workers, do not necessarily share your perception. They see public property and private property as something different. Again, if we want to change that perception, any tactic or strategy has to be evaluated as to effectiveness. In my opinion, busting the window of a bank and breaking into public property during a mass demo does not change this perception.


No, I exclude them on the grounds that it is demonstrative that right now, at this stage of movement building the tactics employed did not work to change mass opinion.


Neither does arguing against it. In fact...arguing against it only perpetuates the notion and only plays right into the hands of not only the state and the current rulling burgeoisie groups but also into the hands of the liberal left and their burgeoisie allies. Because that is the reality of the political game.

[Martin Blank]

And at this stage of the game, to engage in aggressive tactics on the part of a small group is irresponsble. It speaks of ego politics, not revolutionary politics.

That's a political argument, not an organizational one. It should be resolved through political debate, not administrative action.


No, it means that "self-described revolutionaries" need to keep their tactics within the agreement. As to fingering them, I am opposed to that of course.

Your personal, moral opposition is irrelevant. The fact is that, if these movements are limited to "non-violence", then revolutionary elements will get fingered by the liberal pacifists, whether you oppose that or not. Maybe for now it's limited to those who break windows and tag walls, but it won't stay that way. It never does. As the liberal pacifists get bolder, their view of what constitutes "violence" will expand. At some point, anyone calling themselves a revolutionary will be cast as "violent" and thrown out. That was my point, Dave. I've been to enough protests and actions to know how this song ends.


Bullshit. What you are doing is setting up a counter-position of the tactics of liberals and the tactics of "self-described revolutionaries" as if those are the only forces. There are others, myself included, who reject, publicly, vehemently and actively the tactics of the liberals while rejecting the adventurism of the "self-described revolutionaries." Self-described indeed. I think "Halloween revolutionaries" is a better term. And, of course, you are not taking into account the fact that among the "self-described revolutionaries" may well be crazies, people whose politics are completely irresponsible and agents provocateurs.

From what I can see, the only tactics you are rejecting "publicly, vehemently and actively" are those of the Black Bloc. By your actions, you are actually supporting the tactics of the liberals. You moved beyond any kind of independent position the moment you publicly stated in your previous post (and reaffirmed above!) that you would bloc with the liberal pacifists in imposing "non-violence" on the #Occupy movement ... even if it was opposed by the majority of participants. You may use "r-r-r-r-revolutionary" rhetoric, but your actions speak louder than your words, and they call you a liberal pacifist.


right! Oppose the Black Black and join the Democrats. You have a lot to learn politically.

Perhaps, but not from you.


No. And as one of the most active people on revleft with regard to Occupy Wall Street, I've demonstrated that quite well.

Apparently, not active enough to know that OWS already adopted a diversity of tactics agreement -- the one that has been replicated by other #Occupy movements, including (IIRC) Oakland.


It takes more than a few busted windows to make a revolution.

Yes, it does. And I wonder at this point how shrill you'll scream about "adventurism" when the revolution does come.

[Martin Blank]

It is abundantly clear that busting windows and occupying property in the middle of a demonstration, at this time, does nothing positive to change the opinion of people towards the occupations or towards building a revolutonary movement. You may argue that it does, but, frankly, the burden of proof is on you.

OK, now I'm convinced you are either completely out of touch with this movement, or privately oppose its existence. This whole thing started with "occupying property" illegally -- Zuccotti Park, to be exact! Hence the name "OCCUPY Wall Street". Your argument above could be applied against the movement as a whole, since the entire thing is predicated on "occupying property" illegally. And I would tend to think that the very existence of the #Occupy movement is the "burden of proof" you seek.

[The Douche]

In this thread Dave has:

Disputed facts and asked for proof.
Ignored proof when provided.
Sided with liberals.
Argued in defense of the sanctity of private property.
Denounced individuals who are risking the safety right this moment.
Demonstrated a total lack of understand of this entire movement, and many principles which are vitally important to mass movements.


All he's doing in this thread is trolling, I'm embarassed for having fallen for it for so long.

[A Marxist Historian]

OK, now I'm convinced you are either completely out of touch with this movement, or privately oppose its existence. This whole thing started with "occupying property" illegally -- Zuccotti Park, to be exact! Hence the name "OCCUPY Wall Street". Your argument above could be applied against the movement as a whole, since the entire thing is predicated on "occupying property" illegally. And I would tend to think that the very existence of the #Occupy movement is the "burden of proof" you seek.

Indeed.

We have a false dichotomy here however.

Arguing for nonviolence is not the same thing as arguing against busting windows. Though Dave's expansion of this into an argument against "occupying property," which *perhaps* is more than he wanted really to say, is very strange. I am instantly reminded of his argument a couple weeks back that if Bloomberg were to send the cops to kick out OWS, that nobody should resist. In practice however, I suspect that the fiasco with the Traveler's Aid building means that a building occupation in Oakland is now impractical.

Occupy Oakland, indeed Occupy Wall Street everywhere, is in a very difficult tactical position right now, with the forces of the state about to come down on it full blast, using a variety of excuses. I am *not* going to make recommendations of some universal rule of how to deal with this, it has to be judged on the spot.

But if possible, this should be resisted, this is not a time for surrender.

In that context, windowsmashing is a really bad idea, *especially* if OWS is going to physically resist the police, with all the risks that inevitably entails. Gives the cops an excuse and provides no deterrent.

The previous round of assaults on OWS were resisted in NY, SF and Oakland, and mobilizing labor in defense was critical.

If the ILWU drill team were to show up at Occupy Oakland now, Mayor Quan would definitely think twice before greenlighting the assault.

-M.H.-

[RED DAVE]

It is abundantly clear that busting windows and occupying property in the middle of a demonstration, at this time, does nothing positive to change the opinion of people towards the occupations or towards building a revolutonary movement. You may argue that it does, but, frankly, the burden of proof is on you.
OK, now I'm convinced you are either completely out of touch with this movement, or privately oppose its existence.Neither of which is true. I'm probably more involved than you are. In term of whose in touch and who isn't, time will tell.


This whole thing started with "occupying property" illegally -- Zuccotti Park, to be exact! Hence the name "OCCUPY Wall Street".You wouldn't kind me about that. And here I thought all the time that the cops sent the occupiers each an engraved invitation.


Your argument above could be applied against the movement as a whole, since the entire thing is predicated on "occupying property" illegally.But I'm not applying it to the movement as a whole. I'm applying it to one action: the seizing of a building during a demonstration.


And I would tend to think that the very existence of the #Occupy movement is the "burden of proof" you seek.Rhetoric.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

In this thread Dave has:

Disputed facts and asked for proof.
Ignored proof when provided.
Sided with liberals.
Argued in defense of the sanctity of private property.
Denounced individuals who are risking the safety right this moment.
Demonstrated a total lack of understand of this entire movement, and many principles which are vitally important to mass movements.


All he's doing in this thread is trolling, I'm embarassed for having fallen for it for so long.Once more a big bluff.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2291245&postcount=204

RED DAVE

[Martin Blank]

Neither of which is true. I'm probably more involved than you are. In term of whose in touch and who isn't, time will tell.

For the record, I am personally involved on a day-to-day basis in two of the four main working groups (and "float" in the other two, providing assistance and advice) for what is becoming a tri-cities #Occupy movement in Michigan, which involves a physical occupation currently in one city (soon to be two cities), and weekly protests and GAs in all three. This regional #Occupy will soon include one (and perhaps two) more cities, and we have delegations that travel weekly to other #Occupy events in Michigan, including Grand Rapids, Lansing and Detroit. I'm attending at least four to five events a week, and more if I travel. Beyond this, there is the fact that I receive reports from other WPA members and supporters about their local #Occupy actions, including OWS and OO.

So, yes, I suppose time will tell "whose (sic!) in touch and who isn't".


You wouldn't kind me about that. And here I thought all the time that the cops sent the occupiers each an engraved invitation.

Are you being sarcastic? Because I can't tell with you anymore.


But I'm not applying it to the movement as a whole. I'm applying it to one action: the seizing of a building during a demonstration.

It doesn't matter if you're being inconsistent in applying your own logic; it still stands.

[RED DAVE]

Though Dave's expansion of this into an argument against "occupying property," which *perhaps* is more than he wanted really to say, is very strange.What I meant was only in reference to the Traveler's Aid buidling.


I am instantly reminded of his argument a couple weeks back that if Bloomberg were to send the cops to kick out OWS, that nobody should resist.My feeling at that time was that the occupiers were too weak to resist. I may have been right or wrong. What is undeniable is that OWS was defended from the oinks by a huge contingent from the unions.

RED DAVE

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The link to the longshoreman was absolutely vital and has been one of the biggest advances to come out of this so far, but I think one thing that is not being mentioned is what exactly this action was and how it went down.

There was apparently some discussion before hand and it was decided to set up a small picket at shift change. Then an arbitrator from the local showed up to decide what to do. He told the ILWU workers coming in on the new shift not to cross.

It wasn't a general strike, a local wide strike, a wildcat strike, etc. It was a mass march with the involvement of some workers in the local. The ILWU being what it is, and refusing to cross picket lines out of principle, it lead to a port shut down.

Some people have been painting it as something like a mass walk out by the port workers, who then joined arm-in-arm with people marching from Occupy or something like that.

It still had a big effect, but I think it's important to understand what actually went on there.

[A Marxist Historian]

The link to the longshoreman was absolutely vital and has been one of the biggest advances to come out of this so far, but I think one thing that is not being mentioned is what exactly this action was and how it went down.

There was apparently some discussion before hand and it was decided to set up a small picket at shift change. Then an arbitrator from the local showed up to decide what to do. He told the ILWU workers coming in on the new shift not to cross.

It wasn't a general strike, a local wide strike, a wildcat strike, etc. It was a mass march with the involvement of some workers in the local. The ILWU being what it is, and refusing to cross picket lines out of principle, it lead to a port shut down.

Some people have been painting it as something like a mass walk out by the port workers, who then joined arm-in-arm with people marching from Occupy or something like that.

It still had a big effect, but I think it's important to understand what actually went on there.

Useful clarification. I assume you're talking about what happened on the morning shift? Not too many folk were present for that, and I had got the misimpression this was something resembling a wildcat strike, being as the morning OWS picket was far from huge and the port was indeed closed down tight.

This demonstrates the value of understanding that unions are organizations of working people, even if their leaderships, and this definitely includes the ILWU leadership, are sellouts. Mass pressure from the rank and file can compel them to take actions they are not thrilled about, so as not to lose the support of their base.

Talk from some quarters here about how unions are capitalist institutions to be destroyed is absolutely disastrous and has to be squashed. They need to be cleaned up, rehabilitated, the bureaucrats thrown out, so that they can become what they should be, revolutionary organizations.

In fact, unions are the only institutions working people in America have left. They will be the most solid basis of any real revolutionary movement of working people in America that can fight for power. And power is what it is all about.

One good result of OWS will be, I hope, that having seen power in action, the anarchistic fantasies of your average OWS occupier will dissipate, and we can have a real revolutionary movement, which its best veterans, having learned in practice the error of their ways, will help build.

What is needed is a solidly organized revolutionary party of the working class, not formless haphazard useless leaderless chaos.

-M.H.-

[Jose Gracchus]

How long have you been fighting those labor bureaucrats for 'control' over the apparently otherwise naturally revolutionary unions?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The legal adviser to the mayor of Oakland resigned today, saying he supports the occupiers and "not the 1% and its government facilitators."

He's a "progressive attorney" that came out of the activism of the 60's. He was actually involved in an occupation of a park that then-governor Reagan called the cops out. They killed one person (info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Mark_Siegel)).

He say's he's "committed to the end of the rule of capital." We should remember though that his (until now?) good friend Mayor Quan herself used to be involved with the Maoist Communist Workers Party.

[The Douche]

The legal adviser to the mayor of Oakland resigned today, saying he supports the occupiers and "not the 1% and its government facilitators."

He's a "progressive attorney" that came out of the activism of the 60's. He was actually involved in an occupation of a park that then-governor Reagan called the cops out. They killed one person (info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Mark_Siegel)).

He say's he's "committed to the end of the rule of capital." We should remember though that his (until now?) good friend Mayor Quan herself used to be involved with the Maoist Communist Workers Party.

I've seen a lot of people say Quan was involved in the CWP, but trying to find confirmation has been difficult. The only thing I found for sure was that she worked with an asian-american civil rights group who shared office space with the CWP.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yea, I said that before here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2283399&postcount=136).

It turns out the group (Asian Americans for Equality) was pretty heavily involved with the CWP, if not an outright front:

"Asian Americans for Equality, has 'red roots.' .... Throughout the 1970s and ’80s, AAFE and the now-defunct Communist Workers Party shared offices, phone lines and leaders.'..." - source (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pro-north-korean-t163730/index.html?p=2283409)
Then there's this (http://www.bolshevik.org/statements/ibt_20111030_Occupy%20Oakland-General%20Strike.html) from the IBT that claims she "once identified with the defunct Maoist Communist Workers Party."

And I've talked to some people now who were either involved with activism back in the day or know people who were, and they're saying she was definitely down with them.

[Martin Blank]

She is an ex-CWPer. One of our older members was active in the SF Bay Area in the 1970s and remembers her.

[A Marxist Historian]

How long have you been fighting those labor bureaucrats for 'control' over the apparently otherwise naturally revolutionary unions?

Was that directed at me?

If so, yeah, I spent twenty years fighting in my union against the reformism of its leaders. Not so much for "control,' though I did run for office a few times. Served on its representative assembly for quite a while, was shop chairman in a not unimportant shop for a while.

One thing I learned from that is trying to be a one man band in a union is fairly pointless. Without a revolutionary party to back you up, and cothinkers to work with you, it makes you feel good but doesn't accomplish much in the end.

It's like that stuff that Lenin said in "What Is To Be Done." Trade union consciousness is ultimately bourgeois consciousness. The day to day struggle for a better life for your fellow workers just doesn't lead to revolutionary consciousness all by itself. Has to be brought in from the outside by a revolutionary party of the working class.

-M.H.-

[Tim Finnegan]

Like in Paris '68, amirite?

[A Marxist Historian]

Like in Paris '68, amirite?

Clarify?

-M.H.-

[Tim Finnegan]

During the May-June uprising in Paris, 1968, the various Leninist parties and grouplets varied from dead weight at best to actively reactionary at worst. Perhaps there is some factor I'm missing, but for the outbreak of a wildcat general strike(!) to be greeted with complaints and dragged feet by even the most radical of the would-be "vanguards" suggests to me that the revolution "spark", to use Trotsky's own term, lies not in any organisation, as well equipped with theory as it may be, but in the working class itself.