Boots Riley on black bloc tactics

[RedTrackWorker]

Boots Riley is a Marxist rapper who is heavily involved in Occupy Oakland. He posted a series of tweets on the black bloc tactics in the day of action there that I thought was a good take on it, found the compilation of them here (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/boots-riley-on-black-bloc-tactics/):

Not that we need that, but some dedicated non-violent folks in the movement should know that u have2work with others to make change.

Folks dedicated to blac bloc tactics shuld understand working w/others as well. We can’t be dedicated2a tactic. We must b dedicated2winning.

I believe that breaking windows is not “wrong”- it just doesn’t work. For a number of reasons. That is a tactic that puts the mask wearers

in a “vanguard” position. It says “We are the revolutionaries- everyone else needs to wake up!” This either turns ppl off cuz their not at

that point yet, or it causes people to simply cheer from the sidelines. It’s problematic in a mass action where the masked ones know whats

about to happen and everyone else is caught off guard and more vulnerable to the police. The other problem is one of analysis. If we are

in the middle of one of the biggest, most overtly class conscious acts of the last 65 years- one that has the unity of action of 50,000 ppl-

one that caused millions in damage through an action that teaches class analysis and builds an apparatus for future action-why would u think

breaking a window at whole foods is taking it to another level? Its not. The message it gives to most is one of futile frustration. It makes

many feel that they can’t win, that all we can do is break windows. We are making a movement that can stop the wheels of industry. That’s

much more powerful than breaking some windows. Those tactics are ones that could b of use when masses of ppl aren’t taking action. But w/an

action in which 50,000 people are making a huge step and having a general strike, the message should just be “We are all awake.”

But, I think there is an ideological trend that i have encountered that leads to this- one that thinks that the ppl can’t win.

When I critiqued someone around a similar action a few years ago, saying it didn’t pull ppl in, & u can’t win w that tactic. they resonded:

responded: “You can never win, you can only choose how to lose.” Versions of this idea are at the heart of some of this, I believe.

I believe, now even more than a few months ago, that we can win. This is a new era. People are ready. We can win.

The other thing that I left out is that when a group of masked white kids break windows in a city that’s many ppl of color, it feels like

the white kids are claiming ownership, not saying that this city is all of ours. It makes it harder to build a viable mass movement.

I’m saying this knowing the truth, many masked blac bloc folks are NOT white. But, if everyone perceives u as white cuz u have a mask on-

then it has the same effect. We need tactics that help build that movement. That’s all. Black folks in the community I come from look at

marches on Washington and breaking store windows in a similar light- that they’re futile appeals to power. So people stay away.

The thing is, no one can show me a successful revolutionary organization who relied on the tactic of breaking windows as a lynchpin.

It’s like saying, in war, that ur gonna use 1 tactic in every battle, even if it doesnt work.

To be clear, I am speaking to people that I consider comrades. There is no “Blac Bloc”, it’s just ppl who deciding to use that tactic at that

To be clear, I’m speaking to folks as comrades. Blac Bloc is not a group, its folks deciding2use that tactic at a certain time.

But, I have to say, there is a reason why ppl suspect that as bein done by agents:

Recently- During the OscarGrant case, proven police agent, Mandingo, did similar things. There r other cases as well. The problem comes w

using those tactics in a crowd. If u wanna break windows do it separately, don’t have the crowd b the buffer btwn u & police.

Now, the only tactics I’m speaking of are vandalism and why that doesn’t work. There are other tactics that do work.

There are tactics I’ve seen, and that we used for the march to the port, in which we have a group of folks with shields that can push thru

a police line, blocking themselves from batons and bullets & creating a spearhead for the march to go thru. That’s a good one.There r others

Often as seen in OO’s thanksgiving video, police will [email protected] one person, causing our line to break and allowing them thru.

We can use our own distractions as well2get thru their lines. This takes not being dedicated2 a certain tactic, but being dedicated2winning.

The main thing I’m saying is that every situation, every terrain, calls for different tactics.

For example, most of you wouldn’t know me if I had just made an album w different versions of “The Internationale”. We’r in a new situation.

For everyone quoting Gandhi: His movement wasnt the only reason India gained independence. U think the British were only fighting Gandhi?

India had been fighting for its independence for decades via MILITANT movements that still existed during Gandhi’s time.

Britain was involved in a BLOODY conflict w Palestine that soaked up resources. The Hollywood version of Indian independence amazes me.

Gandhi called strikes violent cuz they physically kept scabs out. He was at odds w many others in movement.

Lastly,2supporters of blac bloc tactics: it keeps folks away that would otherwise be militant supporters otherwise. We need the numbers.

We must be guided by what’s rightðical,not what’s legal. Blockin the port: illegal. Did we do it? Yes. Will we do it on Dec 12? Hell yes.

To answer some tweets- Nothing I said advocates assault. I advocate using numbers2make it so police can’t stop our movements.

Sidenote: I’m in Paris, doing shows. When I say I’m from Oakland, many say “Oh! Caleeforneea!”, but half say “Oui! Occupy Oakland!”

[Summerspeaker]

Here's an alternate take (http://rosadefuego.tumblr.com/post/12318618551/an-open-letter-to-the-black-bloc-brigades-occupy):


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 if 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.

[Chambered Word]

^Riley isn't condemning anyone for vandalism, nor is he advocating non-violence. And I can understand that black people would be alienated by white chauvinism in social movements, but there really isn't a white conspiracy out there of people with a common interest in being white. Political movements to challenge capitalism and by extension uproot racism once and for all have to be made, but white chauvinism within such a movement has to be combatted with political arguments against it, not with abandonment of class politics.


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?

While I totally agree that black Americans have been historically poorer and significantly more downtrodden than the white majority, this is Third Worldist bullshit.

[La Comédie Noire]

It's weird, I've had the opposite experience where people of color are more likely to not engage in property destruction than white people because they feel the consequences will fall more heavily on their shoulders.

I guess it's different depending where you go?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Here's an alternate take (http://rosadefuego.tumblr.com/post/12318618551/an-open-letter-to-the-black-bloc-brigades-occupy):

All I read is raaaaage, I don't see anything about how a broken window will stop class oppression. What do undercover cops have to do with anything? Or hippies? White people? Pacifists? She's throwing everything into this grab-bag of "white/liberal culture" which she is blaming for the fact that some people disagree with her tactics. It is just a bunch of generalizations and ad hominem attacks justified by her historical ressentiment, which I suppose entitles her to hate white people/hippies/pacifists/people of color who "buy their bullshit"/the "peace police"/whoever else. At best she can preach to the choir with that kind of attitude.

Yeah breaking windows isn't real violence, especially compared to the systemic violence of the state and centuries of economic oppression. And some people who are critical of violence might not be considerate of the real history of America and empire. But come on... this person could make a better case for its usefulness as a tactic. Does it stop Capital from expanding and growing, or is it just an expression of impotent rage? I hope it's not the latter. Whether or not Boots Riley is right or wrong, he's far more articulate, and seems to understand that a revolution is about deploying the right tactics at the right time, and that there are far more effective (and still highly illegal) ways of fucking Capital over than breaking some glass (you're more likely to give the workers a cold than you are liberate them from their bosses, at least in this weather ...)


It's weird, I've had the opposite experience where people of color are more likely to not engage in property destruction than white people because they feel the consequences will fall more heavily on their shoulders.

I guess it's different depending where you go?

This is a good point, although perhaps people of color are more likely to abstractly sympathize with the act because of their history of oppression despite their reduced willingness to participate?

[marl]

I think Black Bloc is fucking stupid and pointless, but I have 0 sympathy for their victims (evil corporations, big banks, etc)

[IndependentCitizen]

I think Black Bloc is fucking stupid and pointless, but I have 0 sympathy for their victims (evil corporations, big banks, etc)

Enjoy your multi-coloured parades and then getting arrested afterwards.

[kurr]

I've been following Boots Riley's reports of Occupy Oakland for weeks now. He seems very committed to the struggle there. Many rappers could learn from people like him.

[Summerspeaker]

For context, remember that Rosa was responding to this piece (http://www.occupyoakland.org/2011/11/an-open-letter-to-the-black-bloc-brigades/).

[StalinFanboy]

boots is a closet douche bag. anyone who hates on property damage is a moron. not because property destruction will end class society (a fucking strawman if i ever heard one) but because it should simply be a non-issue. as long as there have been property relations, property has been destroyed during uprisings. people get pissed and break shit. its what happens.

this bullshit policing is far more destructive to a real movement against capital than some broken windows and spray paint.

[Ele'ill]

I think Black Bloc is fucking stupid and pointless


because...

[marl]

Let me elaborate: I think the idea of the clothing is very good, but smashing banks solves nothing and only isolates the movement.

[Ocean Seal]

boots is a closet douche bag. anyone who hates on property damage is a moron. not because property destruction will end class society (a fucking strawman if i ever heard one) but because it should simply be a non-issue. as long as there have been property relations, property has been destroyed during uprisings. people get pissed and break shit. its what happens.

this bullshit policing is far more destructive to a real movement against capital than some broken windows and spray paint.
He's not hating on property damage. Just pointing out that it can still grow independent of property damage to a level where property damage becomes systematic and militant working class actions continue hand in hand with property damage.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The question about actions such as smashing windows of Whole Foods, etc is what exactly does it accomplish? No one should be against property damage on moral grounds. All property was built from our work, surplus value extracted by our masters.What does its damage mean?

Every activity should be looked at in terms of enhancing class consciousness and then as a tactic in stopping the working of the system.

Does trashing Whole Foods, Starbucks, small businesses accomplish this? It would not seem so

Does property damage sabotaging the working of a port accomplish this? Under the right circumstances, yes.

Do reprisals against a business, large or small who take actions against against striking workers accomplish this? Sometimes, it depends on the situation.

"Diversity of tactics" yes, but we have to plan and execute well. An action isn't an explosion of rage, it must be planned and organized well.

There was a time when Bolsheviks were beaten up by Russian workers for holdimng back the struggle. A premature action against the Provisional Government would have been disastrous.Spanish anarchists were very brave and heroic and were giants among men (and women). Nevertheless some of their actions objectively aided fascism.POUM did not have its act togerher and could not play more of a positive leadership role.

In the words of Kenny Rogers in what has to be the worst country/pop song ever weritten,u've gotta know when to hold them, gotta know when to fold them".

I wouldn't call Boots Riley "a douche". So far he's saying and doing all the right things.

[Rocky Rococo]

I wonder if Boots has ever heard of the tute bianche (white overalls). It sounds like he'd be interested in their tactics.

http://www.sindominio.net/%7Epablo/fotos/tute%20bianche%20praga/ya_ba.jpg

[Jimmie Higgins]

boots is a closet douche bag. anyone who hates on property damage is a moron. not because property destruction will end class society (a fucking strawman if i ever heard one) but because it should simply be a non-issue. as long as there have been property relations, property has been destroyed during uprisings. people get pissed and break shit. its what happens.

this bullshit policing is far more destructive to a real movement against capital than some broken windows and spray paint.Speaking of straw-men, read what he said in the post. Boots has been pretty consistently fighting against the moralism of the pacifists as well as the black block (two sides of the same coin IMO - fetishization of certain tactics over politics). And since Boots led the march to shut down the port on Nov 2nd, I don't think he's interested in protecting property rights. It's a question of what will actually bring the movement forward and with Nov. 2nd we had the ability to have mass civil disobedience which makes a few individuals pounding on a bank sign look pretty impotent.

Black bloc tactics, affinity groups, and dogmatic Marxist sects who criticize from the sidelines, developed out of a time when radicals were more isolated and struggle was low so any struggle that did happen was locked up and controlled by liberal groups and NGOs and the like. Since there was no way to reach a wider audience - or if the audience simply wasn't receptive to radical arguments - or if top-down and undemocratic movements prevented any way to actually argue for different political ideas and tactics, separating yourself to maintain "purity" made some sense in a defensive way. Now things are different and anarchists and Marxists can reach the general occupy audience and in Oakland it's been radicals who have been backing the best parts of the movement's experience here. Radicals though that lecture but don't participate (some socialists) or come for certain kinds of action but don't organize (some anarchists) are missing an opportunity to begin to rebuild working class radicalism in my opinion.

[Chambered Word]

go ahead and smash up some shops and have some fun, just don't pretend you're actually achieving anything in terms of actual class struggle. Riley isn't hating on property damage, he's pointing out that it's not accomplishing anything. while there's nothing really wrong with destroying businesses, I would argue that attacking the property of working class people is actually counterproductive.

[StalinFanboy]

i cant quote full posts because im on my phone and cant make the reply box bigger.

jimmie; i am from oakland, and have spent considerable time there. so i know the situation. also, read what i said. people who make an issue out of property destruction are morons. it is a continual hangup that always goes round and round. saying proprty destruction will "help" is dumb. saying it wont is dumb. it is going to happen regardless of anything and the only way to stop it is to police people. the only response to any attempted discourse around this stuff should be "shhhhhh."

[StalinFanboy]

go ahead and smash up some shops and have some fun, just don't pretend you're actually achieving anything in terms of actual class struggle. Riley isn't hating on property damage, he's pointing out that it's not accomplishing anything. while there's nothing really wrong with destroying businesses, I would argue that attacking the property of working class people is actually counterproductive.

jesus


what the fuck does "accomplshing anything" even mean? when whole foods got rolled on it was because they threatened to fire employees who wen on strike. after the march they changex their minds. seemed like it accomplished something. and wtf? proprty of working class people wasnt attacked. it was just banks and whole foods. and having been in that march (not the bloc though), let me tell you, there were a lot of non-black clad people cheering.

[9]

First let me say that my keyboards all messed up and a lot of the keys arent working so if anybody is wondering why Im not using punctuation, it isnt because Im trying to be fashionable lol. Also, I would like to say more than Im going to say, but because its such a huge pain in the ass to type on this keyboard, Im gonna have to keep this relatively brief and inarticulate.

Anyway, I think there is a certain degree of validity on both sides of this discussion. I agree with Species Being that vandalism and property destruction happens inevitably in any sort of "uprising" (which is grossly overstating what Occupy actually is IMO, but for lack of a better word] and the whole conversation about whether property destruction in and of itself is productive or not is mostly pointless and boring.

On the other hand, I think when self proclaimed revolutionaries (or "prorevolutionaries", if you prefer} make a lot of noise about "fucking shit up", and behave as though their little circle of anarkies going around and breaking windows or whatever is an expression of the class struggle, its basically just substitutionism, and I think its pretty foolish and obnoxious.

[Rafiq]

go ahead and smash up some shops and have some fun, just don't pretend you're actually achieving anything in terms of actual class struggle. Riley isn't hating on property damage, he's pointing out that it's not accomplishing anything. while there's nothing really wrong with destroying businesses, I would argue that attacking the property of working class people is actually counterproductive.

I think what is needed is organized, systematic destruction of bourgeois property rather than a bunch of hooligans running around breaking shit. Either one is fine, but I prefer the first.

[praxis1966]

I would argue that attacking the property of working class people is actually counterproductive.

I would too. Good thing it didn't happen on N2. What exactly was your point again?


I think what is needed is organized, systematic destruction of bourgeois property rather than a bunch of hooligans running around breaking shit. Either one is fine, but I prefer the first.

The first one is exactly what happened. I'm not saying the following applies to you, but anybody trying to characterize what happened that day as riotous either has an agenda or wasn't anywhere near the place when it happened.

Now that that's over with, I'd just like to point out that while the second of the two big quotes does engage in a lot of hyperbole and smacks of Third Worldism, there is some truth to it. I've been on plenty of OO marches as well as at GAs and the one thing I can say for certain is that the people pushing the "non-violence only" agenda are almost universally white, many of them holdovers from the anti-Vietnam War movement. The "peace police" who physically assaulted a young woman to stop her from vandalizing a Whole Foods was a white male. My point? At the end of the day, I have to conclude that most of the people opposing the property destruction are coming at it from a position of privilege completely foreign to most of Oakland's population. They appear to be either limousine liberals from Piedmont or middle class college kids who just realized that there's no place in the bourgeoisie for them. Not that these categorizations apply to the respondents here, but it's what I've noticed from an ant's eye perspective.

[StalinFanboy]

i was using "uprising" very broadly

[Chambered Word]

jesus


what the fuck does "accomplshing anything" even mean? when whole foods got rolled on it was because they threatened to fire employees who wen on strike. after the march they changex their minds. seemed like it accomplished something. and wtf? proprty of working class people wasnt attacked. it was just banks and whole foods. and having been in that march (not the bloc though), let me tell you, there were a lot of non-black clad people cheering.

emphasis is mine; I'm not implying that there was. sure you can disrupt business as usual with property destruction, but without collective action on the part of workers organized as such it only goes so far. I don't think it's dumb to say that it's not an effective form of struggle (since when was any kind of honest discussion 'dumb'? you only have to state your position without being an ass about it) , but I couldn't give a shit when some shops get trashed anyway and it's really not a bad thing imo.


I would too. Good thing it didn't happen on N2. What exactly was your point again?

because this is revleft, I usually expect there to be some insurrecto who thinks smashing and burning stuff is revolutionary.

[The Douche]

but without collective action on the part of workers organized as such it only goes so far.

I know for a fact, that some of the businesses that got marched on, had employees in the crowd.


because this is revleft, I usually expect there to be some insurrecto who thinks smashing and burning stuff is revolutionary.

As an insurrecto, I want to point out that you're misrepresenting insurrectionary anarchism.

[Chambered Word]

I know for a fact, that some of the businesses that got marched on, had employees in the crowd.

and I'm not claiming otherwise.


As an insurrecto, I want to point out that you're misrepresenting insurrectionary anarchism.

I used the term insurrecto very loosely, my apologies.

[The Douche]

and I'm not claiming otherwise.

Then what did you mean by this:


sure you can disrupt business as usual with property destruction, but without collective action on the part of workers organized as such it only goes so far.


I used the term insurrecto very loosely, my apologies.

:thumbup1:

[bricolage]

Let me elaborate: I think the idea of the clothing is very good, but smashing banks solves nothing and only isolates the movement.
on the contrary if people want to smash things i'm not going to moralise about it, but i don't really care for dressing like a subcultural clique while you're doing it.

[The Douche]

on the contrary if people want to smash things i'm not going to moralise about it, but i don't really care for dressing like a subcultural clique while you're doing it.

How is a northface jacket and a mask, black jeans, and tennis shoes dressing like a "subcultural clique"?

[praxis1966]

on the contrary if people want to smash things i'm not going to moralise about it, but i don't really care for dressing like a subcultural clique while you're doing it.

Soooo, what exactly are you saying? You don't have a problem with the tactic but you dislike them for their poor fashion sense? :laugh: If it makes you feel any better, there were people wearing red who participated as well, they just weren't the majority...

[Ele'ill]

Oh yeah let's dress in our regular clothes.

[bricolage]

In response to the above if we were talking about black blocs of thousands and thousands of people this might be different but we're not, most that happen these days, and especially in America which is the subject of this thread, are far far smaller, normally not functioning as a complete 'bloc'. In this case the point of protecting anonymity doesn't really add up as there aren't enough to blend into and police are easily able to identify black bloccers as they tend to stand out amongst others. In terms of post-event surveillance footage and stuff just having a bally and some sunglasses on protects you just as much as complete black bloc. So then in my opinion having the people doing the property destruction all dressed in black serves more to isolate them from everyone else and maintain the spectator/participant relationship than it does to produce an easily generalisable tactic. When substantial riots take place they attract onlookers and passers by to participate because a sense of commonality can be established and it's seen as something that anyone can be involved with. This seems remarkably different from something that is perceived more as an elite group of individuals or, yes, a subcultural clique... and when I think about the black blocs I've been in and the people that participated this seems more and more apt.

There was a piece written after the Oakland 'general strike' that says this better than I am;

1.)It isn’t likely to spread. If our goal is mass public resistance to capitalism in a direct and confrontational way, then spreading our tactics is paramount. The problem is, for most people, the black block is decidedly “other”. They aren’t familiar with it, it’s frightening looking and for all they know they have to be a card carrying member to join. Nobody has explained to them that anyone can be a part of it and even if they wanted to join they probably don’t happen to have a backpack full of goggles and hoodies with them. It pretty specifically doesn’t fit into the “easily reproducible tactics” category because it’s got so much prior prep work and understanding that needs to take place. People all over the world have riots, everyday, without black clothes, and while I understand that they are used partially to prevent law enforcement from busting us, another 1000 people rioting with us would probably be a much better legal shield, and a much more beautiful sight. Starting a riot in plainclothes, if you really feel like a riot is what we need right now, might be more initially dangerous, but much more likely to become something else.http://anarchistnews.org/node/16910

[Ravachol]

I wonder if Boots has ever heard of the tute bianche (white overalls). It sounds like he'd be interested in their tactics.

http://www.sindominio.net/%7Epablo/fotos/tute%20bianche%20praga/ya_ba.jpg

Fuck the tute bianche and the disobedientti and all the other post-Autonomist Negrist nonsense. Anyone who has ever marched next to them during a G8 demo or whatever knows they are the movement police like nobody else. Their whole approach is so-called 'defensive offensiveness' where they make thick shields and stuff their clothes with foamrubber and just try to 'push through' without any conflict, something that usually ended up in their lines getting broken and getting arrested anyway on many an occasion. They also have a history of close collaboration with the police in identifying 'troublemakers' and trying to 'keep the march peaceful'.

That's no wonder if you take a close look at their reformist ideology, which is the stupidest misrepresentation of Autonomism I've ever seen. Basically they claim that it's working-class offensive that pushes the state and capital to react which transforms the particular form and structure they take in response, like how the mass-worker forced capital to move to post-fordism. From this, they distill that the working class can, through it's own activity, force the state and capital to take a shape which increasingly resembles 'communism' by forcing 'corporate responsibility' and 'international institutions of oversight' and blablabla reinventing social-democracy. It's always these types who try to be the sad movement police.



How is a northface jacket and a mask, black jeans, and tennis shoes dressing like a "subcultural clique"?

Incidentally, during a student demo here about a year ago, quite a few students got arrested before things even got out of hand because they wore northface jackets, all-stars and black jeans. Standard police instructions are to be on the lookout for that but it just so happened that they got in fashion a few months earlier :laugh:

[Chambered Word]

@cmoney: that was a general statement.

[Jimmie Higgins]

jimmie; i am from oakland, and have spent considerable time there. so i know the situation. also, read what i said. people who make an issue out of property destruction are morons.Ok, maybe I misunderstood but I thought you were saying that Boots was supporting the "peace police" when he was actually responding to the debate about pacifism that the liberals were pushing after the Gen Strike (even two proposals to make occupy Oakland a "nonviolent movement". I think Boots responce was correct, that seeing either pacifism or "smashy" as a tactic on principle is equally misguided.


it is a continual hangup that always goes round and round. saying proprty destruction will "help" is dumb. saying it wont is dumb. it is going to happen regardless of anything and the only way to stop it is to police people. the only response to any attempted discourse around this stuff should be "shhhhhh."Well if you are talking about uprisings in general, yes, this system is a pressure cooker and cars will be overturned and windows smashed as a result. We shouldn't even call that kind of thing "violence" - evictions, now that's freaking violent and destruction of people's personal property. We should also have solidarity for our movement too and when reporters and concern-troll liberals cry about broken glass we should tell them to tell the police to practice "non-violence".

But internally and particularly when discussing tendencies which consciously engage in this or that tactic, the response should not be "shush". There's organic anger leading to a window being smashed and then there's split-off marches of people looking to smash a window to make a political statement or whatever. One just happens, the other is a tactic and can and should be debated. For one thing if insurrectionists don't speak up then it's just the peace-police and pacifists making all the arguments and it also creates suspicion about the insurrectionists, and more importantly for my own involvement in the movement, all radicals.

[The Douche]

One just happens, the other is a tactic and can and should be debated. For one thing if insurrectionists don't speak up then it's just the peace-police and pacifists making all the arguments and it also creates suspicion about the insurrectionists, and more importantly for my own involvement in the movement, all radicals.

I'm down to "debate" these things, but in my experience the debate never happens.

People who really do care about the movements, take diversity of tactics to heart, and they understand that while they may disagree with whatever tactic that it is an individual's or group of individuals' "right" (I hate to use that word but I can't think of a better on at the moment) to attack the spectacle in whatever way they see fit.

The only people who actually want to discuss if I should be "allowed" to break things are people who are never going to see my point of view. The fact that they think they should be able to decide how I will conduct myself means that their politics, at the root, are infested with ideas contrary to my own.

Me and species being had an important conversation about how once the concept of "non-violence" as an exclusive tactic was so much as introduced at the GA that the commune was essentially dead. Once that institution begins to assume state structure, or assume that its decisions are more important than the autonomy of individuals/groups of people its the enemy as far as I'm concerned.

[Robespierre Richard]

Not to sound like a Revleft douchebag who always associates everything with 1903-1917 in Russia, but revolutionary Russia had the same sort of problem. Peasants burned down the nobles' estates, often supported by Bolsheviks, as a way to send out the message that neither those nobles nor the structure of oppression that their estate buildings symbolized were welcomed anymore. However, in the case of Konstantinovo in the Ryazan region where the poet Yesenin convinced the peasants to not burn it down it did end up being useful as a hospital and other things. However, in the long term I am for destroying symbols of oppression (or turning them into the opposite, hospitals or museums) because in the eyes of many people these symbols do mean the viability of past states if reused for their present purpose. Symbolic structuralism or structural symbolism or something.

As to what Boots Riley is saying, I think he makes the point that the movement as it is isn't oriented toward the lower classes, but is rather by and for the same people who are organizing and leading it, which spells certain doom because it then only relies on the interests of people with the time, money, resources, and motivation needed to organize such things. In short, RRRNNNGGGHHHHHH VANGUARD!