Chris Hedges: The Cancer in Occupy

[KurtFF8]

Source (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_cancer_of_occupy_20120206/)



Posted on Feb 6, 2012

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/MRfishInnerPeace-300.jpg Mr. Fish
By Chris Hedges (http://www.truthdig.com/chris_hedges)
The Black Bloc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bloc) anarchists, who have been active on the streets in Oakland and other cities, are the cancer of the Occupy movement. The presence of Black Bloc anarchists—so named because they dress in black, obscure their faces, move as a unified mass, seek physical confrontations with police and destroy property—is a gift from heaven to the security and surveillance state. The Occupy encampments in various cities were shut down precisely because they were nonviolent. They were shut down because the state realized the potential of their broad appeal even to those within the systems of power. They were shut down because they articulated a truth about our economic and political system that cut across political and cultural lines. And they were shut down because they were places mothers and fathers with strollers felt safe.
Black Bloc adherents detest those of us on the organized left and seek, quite consciously, to take away our tools of empowerment. They confuse acts of petty vandalism and a repellent cynicism with revolution. The real enemies, they argue, are not the corporate capitalists, but their collaborators among the unions, workers’ movements, radical intellectuals, environmental activists and populist movements such as the Zapatistas (http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/zapatistas.htm). Any group that seeks to rebuild social structures, especially through nonviolent acts of civil disobedience, rather than physically destroy, becomes, in the eyes of Black Bloc anarchists, the enemy. Black Bloc anarchists spend most of their fury not on the architects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or globalism, but on those, such as the Zapatistas, who respond to the problem. It is a grotesque inversion of value systems.
Because Black Bloc anarchists do not believe in organization, indeed oppose all organized movements, they ensure their own powerlessness. They can only be obstructionist. And they are primarily obstructionist to those who resist. John Zerzan (http://www.johnzerzan.net/), one of the principal ideologues of the Black Bloc movement in the United States, defended “Industrial Society and Its Future,” the rambling manifesto by Theodore Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber, although he did not endorse Kaczynski’s bombings. Zerzan is a fierce critic of a long list of supposed sellouts starting with Noam Chomsky. Black Bloc anarchists are an example of what Theodore Roszak in “The Making of a Counter Culture” called the “progressive adolescentization” of the American left.
In Zerzan’s now defunct magazine Green Anarchy (which survives as a website (http://greenanarchy.webs.com/)) he published an article (http://www.reocities.com/kk_abacus/vb/wd7ezln.html) by someone named “Venomous Butterfly” that excoriated the Zapatista Army for National Liberation (EZLN). The essay declared that “not only are those [the Zapatistas’] aims not anarchist; they are not even revolutionary.” It also denounced the indigenous movement for “nationalist language,” for asserting the right of people to “alter or modify their form of government” and for having the goals of “work, land, housing, health care, education, independence, freedom, democracy, justice and peace.” The movement, the article stated, was not worthy of support because it called for “nothing concrete that could not be provided by capitalism.”
“Of course,” the article went on, “the social struggles of exploited and oppressed people cannot be expected to conform to some abstract anarchist ideal. These struggles arise in particular situations, sparked by specific events. The question of revolutionary solidarity in these struggles is, therefore, the question of how to intervene in a way that is fitting with one’s aims, in a way that moves one’s revolutionary anarchist project forward.”
Solidarity becomes the hijacking or destruction of competing movements, which is exactly what the Black Bloc contingents are attempting to do with the Occupy movement. “The Black Bloc can say they are attacking cops, but what they are really doing is destroying the Occupy movement,” the writer and environmental activist Derrick Jensen (http://www.derrickjensen.org/) told me when I reached him by phone in California. “If their real target actually was the cops and not the Occupy movement, the Black Bloc would make their actions completely separate from Occupy, instead of effectively using these others as a human shield. Their attacks on cops are simply a means to an end, which is to destroy a movement that doesn’t fit their ideological standard.”
“I don’t have a problem with escalating tactics to some sort of militant resistance if it is appropriate morally, strategically and tactically,” Jensen continued. “This is true if one is going to pick up a sign, a rock or a gun. But you need to have thought it through. The Black Bloc spends more time attempting to destroy movements than they do attacking those in power. They hate the left more than they hate capitalists.”
“Their thinking is not only nonstrategic, but actively opposed to strategy,” said Jensen, author of several books, including “The Culture of Make Believe.” “They are unwilling to think critically about whether one is acting appropriately in the moment. I have no problem with someone violating boundaries [when] that violation is the smart, appropriate thing to do. I have a huge problem with people violating boundaries for the sake of violating boundaries. It is a lot easier to pick up a rock and throw it through the nearest window than it is to organize, or at least figure out which window you should throw a rock through if you are going to throw a rock. A lot of it is laziness.”
Groups of Black Bloc protesters, for example, smashed the windows of a locally owned coffee shop in November in Oakland and looted it. It was not, as Jensen points out, a strategic, moral or tactical act. It was done for its own sake. Random acts of violence, looting and vandalism are justified, in the jargon of the movement, as components of “feral” or “spontaneous insurrection.” These acts, the movement argues, can never be organized. Organization, in the thinking of the movement, implies hierarchy, which must always be opposed. There can be no restraints on “feral” or “spontaneous” acts of insurrection. Whoever gets hurt gets hurt. Whatever gets destroyed gets destroyed.
There is a word for this—“criminal.”


The Black Bloc movement is infected with a deeply disturbing hypermasculinity. This hypermasculinity, I expect, is its primary appeal. It taps into the lust that lurks within us to destroy, not only things but human beings. It offers the godlike power that comes with mob violence. Marching as a uniformed mass, all dressed in black to become part of an anonymous bloc, faces covered, temporarily overcomes alienation, feelings of inadequacy, powerlessness and loneliness. It imparts to those in the mob a sense of comradeship. It permits an inchoate rage to be unleashed on any target. Pity, compassion and tenderness are banished for the intoxication of power. It is the same sickness that fuels the swarms of police who pepper-spray and beat peaceful demonstrators. It is the sickness of soldiers in war. It turns human beings into beasts.
“We run on,” Erich Maria Remarque wrote in “All Quiet on the Western Front,” “overwhelmed by this wave that bears us along, that fills us with ferocity, turns us into thugs, into murderers, into God only knows what devils: this wave that multiplies our strength with fear and madness and greed of life, seeking and fighting for nothing but our deliverance.”
The corporate state understands and welcomes the language of force. It can use the Black Bloc’s confrontational tactics and destruction of property to justify draconian forms of control and frighten the wider population away from supporting the Occupy movement. Once the Occupy movement is painted as a flag-burning, rock-throwing, angry mob we are finished. If we become isolated we can be crushed. The arrests last weekend in Oakland of more than 400 protesters, some of whom had thrown rocks, carried homemade shields and rolled barricades, are an indication of the scale of escalating repression and a failure to remain a unified, nonviolent opposition. Police pumped tear gas, flash-bang grenades and “less lethal” rounds into the crowds. Once protesters were in jail they were denied crucial medications, kept in overcrowded cells and pushed around. A march in New York called in solidarity with the Oakland protesters saw a few demonstrators imitate the Black Bloc tactics in Oakland, including throwing bottles at police and dumping garbage on the street. They chanted “Fuck the police” and “Racist, sexist, anti-gay / NYPD go away.”
This is a struggle to win the hearts and minds of the wider public and those within the structures of power (including the police) who are possessed of a conscience. It is not a war. Nonviolent movements, on some level, embrace police brutality. The continuing attempt by the state to crush peaceful protesters who call for simple acts of justice delegitimizes the power elite. It prompts a passive population to respond. It brings some within the structures of power to our side and creates internal divisions that will lead to paralysis within the network of authority. Martin Luther King kept holding marches in Birmingham because he knew Public Safety Commissioner “Bull” Connor (http://historylabs.hcpss.wikispaces.net/file/view/NY+Times+Obituary+Connor.pdf) was a thug who would overreact.
The Black Bloc’s thought-terminating cliché of “diversity of tactics” in the end opens the way for hundreds or thousands of peaceful marchers to be discredited by a handful of hooligans. The state could not be happier. It is a safe bet that among Black Bloc groups in cities such as Oakland are agents provocateurs spurring them on to more mayhem. But with or without police infiltration the Black Bloc is serving the interests of the 1 percent. These anarchists represent no one but themselves. Those in Oakland, although most are white and many are not from the city, arrogantly dismiss Oakland’s African-American leaders, who, along with other local community organizers, should be determining the forms of resistance. The explosive rise of the Occupy Wall Street movement came when a few women, trapped behind orange mesh netting, were pepper-sprayed by NYPD Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna. The violence and cruelty of the state were exposed. And the Occupy movement, through its steadfast refusal to respond to police provocation, resonated across the country. Losing this moral authority, this ability to show through nonviolent protest the corruption and decadence of the corporate state, would be crippling to the movement. It would reduce us to the moral degradation of our oppressors. And that is what our oppressors want.
The Black Bloc movement bears the rigidity and dogmatism of all absolutism sects. Its adherents alone possess the truth. They alone understand. They alone arrogate the right, because they are enlightened and we are not, to dismiss and ignore competing points of view as infantile and irrelevant. They hear only their own voices. They heed only their own thoughts. They believe only their own clichés. And this makes them not only deeply intolerant but stupid.
“Once you are hostile to organization and strategic thinking the only thing that remains is lifestyle purity,” Jensen said. “ ‘Lifestylism’ has supplanted organization in terms of a lot of mainstream environmental thinking. Instead of opposing the corporate state, [lifestylism maintains] we should use less toilet paper and should compost. This attitude is ineffective. Once you give up on organizing or are hostile to it, all you are left with is this hyperpurity that becomes rigid dogma. You attack people who, for example, use a telephone. This is true with vegans and questions of diet. It is true with anti-car activists toward those who drive cars. It is the same with the anarchists. When I called the police after I received death threats I became to Black Bloc anarchists ‘a pig lover.’ ”
“If you live on Ogoni land and you see that Ken Saro-Wiwa (http://www.cleanthenigerdelta.org/index.php/whowaskensarowiwa) is murdered for acts of nonviolent resistance,” Jensen said, “if you see that the land is still being trashed, then you might think about escalating. I don’t have a problem with that. But we have to go through the process of trying to work with the system and getting screwed. It is only then that we get to move beyond it. We can’t short-circuit the process. There is a maturation process we have to go through, as individuals and as a movement. We can’t say, ‘Hey, I’m going to throw a flowerpot at a cop because it is fun.’ ”



I'm surprised this hasn't been posted at this sub-forum yet. It's caused quite a stir of responses and frustration towards Hedges

[Comrade Auldnik]

I find this article quite on the money. So far, in my city, we've actually kept our "diverse tactics" nonviolent, if not particularly effective at radicalizing the working class.

[Jimmie Higgins]

A radio debate with Chris Hedges on KPFA -

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/77663

[ed miliband]

When I called the police after I received death threats I became to Black Bloc anarchists ‘a pig lover.’ ”

what a shit sentence.

[ed miliband]

and why does he seem to think there is some sub-group of anarchists called "Black Bloc anarchists"?

[Comrade Auldnik]

and why does he seem to think there is some sub-group of anarchists called "Black Bloc anarchists"?

:blink:

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I know what the real cancer in Occupy is. It's those uppity pacifist liberal types. They're the real problem.

[ed miliband]

:blink:

what? "black bloc" is a tactic...

[Comrade Auldnik]

I know what the real cancer in Occupy is. It's those uppity pacifist liberal types. They're the real problem.

:blink:

[Comrade Auldnik]

what? "black bloc" is a tactic...

Maybe that's why he chose to name the "adolescentization" tendency after it?

[marl]

I know what the real cancer in Occupy is. It's those uppity pacifist liberal types. They're the real problem.

Them getting their asses handed to them with nightsticks does far better than some punk breaking a window.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Maybe that's why he chose to name the "adolescentization" tendency after it?

Ah, yes, the height of maturity is to yell niceties at the filth as they come at you with batons, the height is to take all the shit they throw at you, and while you're at it, respect private property, not infringe on any nice, kind landlord or vile small-business owners whose buildings echo empty while the homeless crowds the streets in the shadow of the viaducts, whose stores occupy space in the fortresses of inflated rents.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Ah, yes, the height of maturity is to yell niceties at the filth as they come at you with batons, the height is to take all the shit they throw at you, and while you're at it, respect private property, not infringe on any nice, kind landlord or vile small-business owners whose buildings echo empty while the homeless crowds the streets in the shadow of the viaducts, whose stores occupy space in the fortresses of inflated rents.

Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about to. You got my number. It's not like I was talking about random reactionary violence as opposed to self-defense. Little snot.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about to. You got my number. It's not like I was talking about random reactionary violence as opposed to self-defense. Little snot.

Oh, sod off you little maggot. What's wrong with smashing windows? It's not the most useful act in the world, but there's no reason to be concerned about private property getting damaged, either. It's not supposed to be an all-family holiday, not supposed to be a picnic in the park where the family go down with their stroller to look at all the happy hippies doing their useless non-violence thing that accomplishes zero. They should hide their faces with masks - why shouldn't they? Non-violence never lead to much of any significant achievement. It's a myth they foster because they like to make sure nothing changes, and the liberal-left, like Hedges, are in on it. Reformist drivel. All violence against police, property and state is self-defence.

[NewLeft]

Hypermasculinity? 2/3 of the "black block" were women! I guess revolting is not feminine, women should just stay at home.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Oh, sod off you little maggot. What's wrong with smashing windows? It's not the most useful act in the world, but there's no reason to be concerned about private property getting damaged, either. It's not supposed to be an all-family holiday, not supposed to be a picnic in the park where the family go down with their stroller to look at all the happy hippies doing their useless non-violence thing that accomplishes zero. They should hide their faces with masks - why shouldn't they? Non-violence never lead to much of any significant achievement. It's a myth they foster because they like to make sure nothing changes, and the liberal-left, like Hedges, are in on it. Reformist drivel. All violence against police, property and state is self-defence.
I think it was mentioned in another thread but you're not going to grow much as a movement if all you're seen as is a bunch of stupid kids thinking it's cool to smash random car windows. I'm not going to cry over a broken window or a brick thrown at a police officer but it will turn a great number of people against you who aren't radicalized yet. I don't see us at that point yet where we can get away with much property damage or violence and still have a thriving movement. You have a couple hundred people going to these marches now, you want it to stay like that? Have fun while the police slowly chip away at your numbers... But hey, at least you were able to smash a window that got replaced the next day, you really showed them!

[Prometeo liberado]

I think it's stupid and counterproductive to take sides on destruction based on what sect supports it. What I really take exception with are the anarchist groups that see their comrades in red as the primary enemy. Two totally bullshit arguments that need to be dealt with in an office far, far away while the rest of us take care of business. Go rant on RANN if that gets you off. They hate Reds anyways. I'll get down with anygroup that is down for the total fight. Tactics be damned!

As for the occupy movement losing steam or not becoming what it should have become then there are many reasons.
1)Inability to form a cohesive leadership
2)Members reacting to events as they happened, no clear proactive vision
3)The mere apperance of drug use(not now just to early)
4)The great debate on violence and police resistence.
5)The push and pull of the different sects for a unified voice against the libs.

[Tim Cornelis]

What a shit article. Since when are "Black bloc anarchists" "anarcho-"primitivists? Since when is the "black bloc" opposed to organisation? Since when is the "black bloc" opposed to the EZLN?


They chanted “Fuck the police” and “Racist, sexist, anti-gay / NYPD go away.”
This is a struggle to win the hearts and minds of the wider public and those within the structures of power (including the police) who are possessed of a conscience.

Yeah, let's persuade the police to not stop us and become revolutionaries, lol.

While I'm certainly not a particular fan of black bloc tactics either, the whole pacifism liberal bullshit is even worse.


There is a word for this—“criminal.”

lol

[brigadista]

who is chris hedges?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

who is chris hedges?

Some liberal who calls himself a socialist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

God what a terrible piece


The real enemies, they argue, are not the corporate capitalists, but their collaborators among the unions, workers’ movements, radical intellectuals, environmental activists and populist movements such as the Zapatistas (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/zapatistas.htm).

:blink: Did he just make this up? Is this what counts as journalism?


Black Bloc anarchists spend most of their fury not on the architects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or globalism

:blink: One of the major inspirations for the "black bloc" tactic, and the event they've tried to recreate at subsequent summit-hops, was the WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999. Again, he just totally makes shit up that's factually wrong, and he'd realize it with just a tiny bit of research.


Because Black Bloc anarchists do not believe in organization, indeed oppose all organized movements, they ensure their own powerlessness.

They do believe in organization, through affinity groups etc.


In Zerzan’s now defunct magazine Green Anarchy (which survives as a website (http://www.anonym.to/?http://greenanarchy.webs.com/)) he published an article (http://www.reocities.com/kk_abacus/vb/wd7ezln.html) by someone named “Venomous Butterfly” that excoriated the Zapatista Army for National Liberation (EZLN).

God why does Hedges have such a hard-on for the EZLN? The EZLN are not beyond criticism, but that's not even the point. The point is that the EZLN (and similar movements) are not the subjects of seething hate from the black bloc like he seems to think they are. In fact one could argue that the black bloc and the EZLN are part of the same broad anti-globalization movement of the 1990's.


“The Black Bloc can say they are attacking cops, but what they are really doing is destroying the Occupy movement,” the writer and environmental activist Derrick Jensen (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.derrickjensen.org/) told me

:lol::lol::lol:


The Black Bloc movement is infected with a deeply disturbing hypermasculinity. This hypermasculinity, I expect, is its primary appeal. It taps into the lust that lurks within us to destroy, not only things but human beings. It offers the godlike power that comes with mob violence. Marching as a uniformed mass, all dressed in black to become part of an anonymous bloc, faces covered, temporarily overcomes alienation, feelings of inadequacy, powerlessness and loneliness. It imparts to those in the mob a sense of comradeship. It permits an inchoate rage to be unleashed on any target. Pity, compassion and tenderness are banished for the intoxication of power. It is the same sickness that fuels the swarms of police who pepper-spray and beat peaceful demonstrators. It is the sickness of soldiers in war. It turns human beings into beasts.

Is this the same tool who praised the Greek rioters and saluted them for "embracing the language of class war"?

There is of course a lot of other things I disagree with here, but I'm not bored enough to continue on with it.

[bcbm]

the funniest part for me is chris hedges' earlier piece praising the greeks for doing exactly what he decries the black bloc for. well, that and the fact that he talks about john zerzan like anybody gives a shit. this piece seriously reads like some of the worst shit that came out after seattle in 1999 and is about as relevant. nevermind that anarchists (even 'black bloc anarchists' what a stupid phrase) have always been part of occupy, nevermind they were some of the few continuing to protest and, yes, organize during the post-antiglobalization years 2001-2011, etc, etc. i guess with the movement seeming to be on shaky legs there has to be someone to lay the blame on and the black bloc is an always-convenient scapegoat. been here, seen all this before. if he wants to look for cancer maybe it lies in the fact we're still pointing fingers and screaming at each other instead of fighting the real enemies. anyway, i thought this response (http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/08/a-bustle-in-hedges-row/) was one of the better ones, especially coming from hedges' 'side' of the movement.


This is a struggle to win the hearts and minds of the wider public and those within the structures of power (including the police) who are possessed of a conscience. It is not a war.


Dr. King’s policy was that nonviolence would achieve the gains for black people in the United States. His major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That’s very good. He only made one fallacious assumption: in order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none, has none.

this is true now more than ever. there is a crisis for those in power, they have no conscience to appeal to and we are not here to appeal to power, to beg it to listen to us.


If you live on Ogoni land and you see that Ken Saro-Wiwa (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.cleanthenigerdelta.org/index.php/whowaskensarowiwa) is murdered for acts of nonviolent resistance,” Jensen said, “if you see that the land is still being trashed, then you might think about escalating. I don’t have a problem with that.

wait, wasn't half this piece about how the police have been brutalizing people all over the country? do we have to wait until they start actively murdering us before we can 'escalate?' i would think using shooting nonviolent protesters in the head with gas canisters might be enough, to say nothing of the constant violence of the police against occupy and against everyone else, but not for derrick 'the only way to answer that is with explosives' jensen apparently. remember, if a dam is killing salmon it is okay to use violence but when armed thugs are assaulting you and your friends, it is wrong wrong wrong.

[bcbm]

oh and discussions like this should happen within the movement, at general assemblies or with comrades, not as fucking articles on media websites.

[Ele'ill]

Ya'll hear anonymous is threatening black bloc'rs? If anyone touches that window the peace police will fracture your cranium and anonymous will ruin your life forever.

[bcbm]

Ya'll hear anonymous is threatening black bloc'rs? If anyone touches that window the peace police will fracture your cranium and anonymous will ruin your life forever.

yeah i saw that. if that wasn't posted by the cops it should have been. seriously the cops should just leave occupy alone, seems like plenty of activists are tripping over themselves to do the cops job anyway

[Ele'ill]

Yeah totally. If you haven't checked out the occupy portland thread it might be worth a gander- Or the portland IMC site. We had a wonderful march go completely south recently for pretty much the reasons mentioned here in this thread.

[Ele'ill]

Also what's with the sudden surge of liberals using Otpor as a model for non-violence?

[DaringMehring]

I would never waste my time attacking other Leftists or siding with the bourgeoisie on anything.

But I do wonder -- in my head -- what the motivation or hope of Black Bloc types is. I cannot see how smashing windows relates to overthrowing the system. If anything destroying capital sets back the organic composition of capital and therefore rejuvenates capitalism's ability to employ people and make a profit.

It seems to me that occupying is a better tactic than destroying. Rather than "fuck you and your ill-gotten wealth" the message should be "this is the working people's wealth." We created this value, we want some of it back, not to destroy it.

Especially good in the case of the abandoned building like in Oakland. Those fuckers aren't even using it. And still they deploy violence to keep others out... while millions lack shelter.

[Ele'ill]

I think that the property destruction that takes place is a peripheral out pour of anger akin to agitprop. It's a spell breaker. I don't think it's a specific tactic used to inflict economic damage. I think the militancy demonstrated during black bloc actions can do without a lot of the property destruction as having 50+ peeps in black with flags on metal poles watching each other's backs is enough some times to get the point across. I don't think the issue these hacks have with the blocs stems from resentment of property destruction so much as it does any confrontation at all- regardless if the police initiate. If the police attack and people defend themselves even nonviolently you'll still hear these losers complaining. It's like the liberals have an incapacitation fetish where they approach all their actions as if they were paying to go to a BDSM dungeon.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'm not a fan of black bloc tactics and I'm not a fan of Hedges though I do own one of his books, but his attitude is the real source of the cancer. From the very beginning these random liberals descended on us and did everything in their power push the movement as far into the middle as they could. They claimed that the diversity of views involved was the movements strength, while at the same time doing everything they could do suppress any legitimate revolutionary view points. Anarchists and Marxists alike were ridiculed or denounced as police infiltrators at my local occupy and it seems like this was repeated everywhere else.

I was hopeful at first that this movement could act as a point of unity for the left here in the US and lead to a real mass movement, and perhaps it could have done all that if not for the fucking liberals.

[Lucretia]

I see the Hedges article is getting under the skin of the rebel-against-my-mommy-by-embracing-anarchism crowd. The two most important points the article makes have not been refuted --that blacbloc tactics (or anarchists) are anti-strategic and geared entirely toward destruction without any regard to the kind of society revolutionaries want to build in its place.

So lets take the example of a glass window. The bbloc "analysis" seems to be that private property laws are bad, the glass window is protected by those bad laws, so its okay to smash the window. It dies not enter into the thinking of these people that there will still be personal property and belongings in a communist society (unless you really are a primitivist), and that such laws in bourgeois society are to some extent *contradictory*. Some people need glass windows to keep out the cold or to maintain a very small business that they need to keep up a modest lifestyle. It is therefore not okay to smash that window, at least when theres no guarantee that such window smashing will result in an immediate revolution that will soon benefit everyone, including the owner of the window. But the bbers refuse to see such things in their single-minded anti-strategic focus on destruction.

[9]

It just seems like a really pointless discussion to be arguing over which tactics are the main problem with Occupy. IMHO the main problem with Occupy isnt a question of tactics at all, but rather the fact that it isnt a working class movement.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Ya'll hear anonymous is threatening black bloc'rs? If anyone touches that window the peace police will fracture your cranium and anonymous will ruin your life forever.

Yeah I don't know about ruining your life forever, re: anonymous...as far as I know people like John Pike and that one abusive judge dude are still doing their old jobs. The only thing they do really is dox people, aka spread their info online, and no one really cares about the black bloc anyway outside of the leftist ghetto, so I wouldn't really worry about it.

Of course, the really bad thing is that identifying people who may have been suspected of illegal activity is essentially playing the role of snitch, which is basically what anyone threatening to reveal identifying info in this context is.

Also, I'd imagine it would be harder to find out who people are unless you're involved in the same social scene. It's all pretty irrelevant anyway.

[NewLeft]

I'm not going to cry about or snitch on anyone who smashes a Whole Food's/Starbucks/McDonalds.

[blake 3:17]

I'm with Hedges on this one.

The Black Bloc "tactic" is stoooooooooooooopid. If you wanna fuck sh^t up don't wear a uniform.

In my first serious political involvement I worked with some very serious German autonomists & we usually agreed. Claim the higher moral ground. Socialism/anarchy isn't scientific, it's an imprecise art & we need to work towards it.

A year and a half ago in Toronto, I was stuck between a huge row of cops and huge row of Black Bloc uniforms -- same shit -- fucking macho shit head behaviour

I did duck behind and joined some annoying vegans.

[Ocean Seal]

Can't tell if this guy is trolling or if he thinks that posts on the internet are reflective of an entire movement. God liberals are dumb.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The "black bloc" just provides grist to the Faux News propaganda machine. I remember the Days of Rage and we don't need any Mark Rudd/Bernardine Dohrn wannabes repeating the same Custeristic and adventuristic errors of the past.

[Martin Blank]

http://www.martinsayles.com/2012/02/09/through-the-liberal-looking-glass/


Through the Liberal Looking Glass

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last five months, you are probably familiar with the efforts by the mouthpieces of exploitation and oppression, both on the right and the left, to turn “middle class” “public opinion” against the #Occupy movement. From newspapers and magazines, to talk radio and 24-hour cable “info-tainment” channels, to the Internet and its bastard stepchild, the bloggosphere, virtually every angle of attack has been tried by the varying voices of the owning and managing classes.
For the purposes of this article, we can leave aside the attacks by the reactionary corporatist and Nativist-fascist media. After all, they are still frothing at the mouth over a lone occupier who left a steaming pile of protest in the passenger seat of a cop car. (How anyone could actually differentiate between it and a New York City cop is still beyond me.) Our focus for the moment is on the so-called “liberals” who have been attacking the #Occupy movement.


Now, it really shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that the “liberal” wing of the ruling classes have attacked #Occupy. From the beginning, the movement placed political independence from both the Republicans and Democrats at the core of its political message. It had to, since so much of the “corruption,” “greed” and inhumanity that #Occupy sought to oppose was aided and abetted by the twin parties of corporatist capitalism. Unlike their reactionary “conservative” brethren, however, the “liberals” were not looking to actually smash the movement. Rather, they sought to take it over and turn #Occupy into the Democratic Party’s equivalent to the “Tea Party” Nativists — i.e., a quasi-independent electoral vehicle for “liberal” Democratic candidates.


At first, the Democrats and their subordinates tried to take over by placing themselves at the front of demonstrations with the most pre-printed signs, loudest sound system, bused in protesters, and so on. These attempts, however, went over like a lead balloon. At best, most occupiers simply ignored the groups carrying out these tactics; at worst, the movement roundly denounced the attempts at co-option by the “operatives of the parties of the 1 percent.” Special focus was given to the loyal labor lieutenants of capitalism: the officials and staffers of the corporatist business unions, such as the Service Employees, Steel Workers, Auto Workers and Municipal Employees. Many #Occupy groups seemed to feel that their attempts at co-option on behalf of the Democrats were akin to a betrayal of trust, and it understandably damaged relations between the movement and the business unions.


While these more open attempts at co-option were underway, the “liberals” also opened up a second front against #Occupy. This second front was a classic “divide and conquer” strategy.


From the beginning, the #Occupy movement had a diversity of political views and methods. There were supporters of the Zeitgeist and Ron Paul cults, conservatives, moderates, liberals, pacifists, radicals, anarchists, socialists, communists, etc., throughout the movement. This broad diversity of opinion — rightly recognized as the kind of diversity found in the “99 percent” as a whole — led many of the #Occupy groups to acknowledge that with such broad opinions also comes a “diversity of tactics,” from simple protests, to nonviolent civil disobedience, to militant self-defense, to guerrilla-style attacks on what the military would call “targets of opportunity.” This diversity of tactics frustrated and angered many of the liberals who began entering into the #Occupy movement as it gained momentum nationally. Nowhere was this more apparent than in Oakland, California, where brutal police attacks on occupiers led some to fight back by attacking businesses in the downtown area.


These liberals would wring their hands and shed crocodile tears over the level of police violence used against #Occupy, but would unsheathe their long knives for use against those who would dare to respond to the police violence. Indeed, these liberal elements often tried to turn the reality of what was happening inside-out, arguing that the mere presence of radicals and revolutionaries — especially anarchists — was the cause of the police attacks. Never letting small facts get in the way of Big Lies, the liberals repeatedly tried to impose their will on local #Occupy groups, including in Oakland, by packing General Assemblies and forcing votes that would declare these groups to be “nonviolent.” These attempts repeatedly failed.


Enter Chris Hedges.


Hedges, considered by many in the #Occupy movement to be an inspiration, recently penned an article for the Truthdig website that can only be described as a hit piece on behalf of the liberals trying to divide the movement.


Titled “The Cancer in Occupy,” Hedges attacks anarchists in general and the “Black Bloc” in particular as “a gift from heaven to the security and surveillance state.” In fact, his entire article is little more than one big a priori argument. That is, it is mostly assertion by Hedges and his friend, Derrick Jensen, with no facts to provide a foundation for his criticisms. For example, Hedges writes:

Black Bloc adherents detest those of us on the organized left [sic!] and seek, quite consciously, to take away our tools of empowerment. They confuse acts of petty vandalism and a repellent cynicism with revolution. The real enemies, they argue, are not the corporate capitalists, but their collaborators among the unions, workers’ movements, radical intellectuals, environmental activists and populist movements such as the Zapatistas. Any group that seeks to rebuild social structures, especially through nonviolent acts of civil disobedience, rather than physically destroy, becomes, in the eyes of Black Bloc anarchists, the enemy. Black Bloc anarchists spend most of their fury not on the architects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or globalism, but on those, such as the Zapatistas, who respond to the problem. It is a grotesque inversion of value systems. (“The Cancer in Occupy (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_cancer_of_occupy_20120206/),” February 6, 2012)
Am I the only one who thinks this diatribe all boils down to “they hate us for our freedoms?”


Now, I’ve known a lot of Black Bloc anarchists over the years, and I’ve never met any that fit Hedges’ description. In fact, those I’ve met, whether in person or online, have been virtually the opposite of Hedges’ crude caricature. They have been thoughtful and constructive in their work in the #Occupy movement, helping to “rebuild social structures” along new lines, not the same ones that capitalism (and, apparently, Hedges) prefers. They don’t confuse small-scale attacks on property with revolution, and they don’t see workers, other radicals, environmentalists, populists, etc., as the “main enemy.” Who they (rightly) see as opponents are union officials, self-appointed “vanguards” of the workers’ movement, radical liberals and intellectuals (like Jensen and Hedges) who want to bind workers and young people to the existing capitalist system.


As a communist, I have plenty of criticism of the strategy and tactics employed by anarchists. For example, I do not agree with the small-scale, guerrilla-like raids, which usually result in little more than a few busted windows. I don’t see those actions as any more effective than leaving a flaming bag of poo on someone’s doorstep. Annoying and disruptive, yes. Opening the door to the new world, no. I tend to think such energy is better used as part of organizing self-defense groups to defend occupations from police violence, and from attacks by reactionary and Nativist-fascist gangs. Likewise, I have reservations about the whole “no leaders” concept, not because I think working people need some kind of Moses to lead them to the Promised Land (Eugene Debs said it best: anyone who can lead you into the Promised Land can also lead you out of it), but because I am a firm believer in accountability, and that those who hold responsible positions within an organization or movement should be regularly called on the carpet to account for what they have done (or not done).


Reading over the entire article, the only “anarchists” Hedges can point to as justification for his argument are a gaggle of online anarcho-primitivists. (Bonus points for you if the irony of that last phrase doesn’t escape you.) Perhaps someone needs to point out that anarcho-primitivists are no more liked in many anarchist circles than they are by Hedges. Then again, he seems highly unlikely to listen to anyone or anything other than his own voice.


It’s easy to poke holes in Hedges’ arguments. Most of the article itself is little more than visceral anger and frustration wrapped up in pseudo-academic arrogance. But there are two very important points that can be derived from Hedges’ written trainwreck.


First, there is the sheer hypocrisy of his argument. In a reply to Hedges’ article (http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/zakkflash02072012/), Zakk Flash, a relatively well-known anarchist writer from Oklahoma, points out how, when it comes to militant and radical action against the state, Hedges engages in a good ol’ fashioned double standard. When mass protests against austerity measures began to explode in Greece almost two years ago, Hedges was among the first on the sidelines with him pom-pom, cheering on the anarchists and communists fighting cops in the streets:

Here’s to the Greeks…. They know what to do when they are told their pensions, benefits and jobs have to be cut to pay corporate banks, which screwed them in the first place. Call a general strike. Riot. Shut down the city centers. Toss the bastards out. Do not be afraid of the language of class warfare — the rich versus the poor, the oligarchs versus the citizens, the capitalists versus the proletariat. (“The Greeks Get It (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_greeks_get_it_20100524/),” May 24, 2010)
Change the word “Greeks” to “people of Oakland” and Hedges will no longer be waving his pom-pom; instead, he’ll be wielding a cudgel as he speed-dials the cops.


What also makes this double standard and hypocrisy even more staggering is that, in the very same article where he calls on the Greeks to “Call a general strike. Riot. Shut down the city centers. Toss the bastards out,” he cautions that this kind of austerity is heading toward America.

… the [American] corporate overlords will demand that we too impose draconian controls and cuts … the corporate state, despite this suffering, will continue to plunge us deeper into debt to make war. It will use fear to keep us passive….
… there has to be a point when even the American public — which still believes the fairy tale that personal will power and positive thinking will lead to success — will realize it has been had. (ibid.)
What a difference 20 months can make. Or, perhaps, more to the point, what a difference 8,000 miles makes.


Like many other “middle-class” leftists, including many who call themselves socialists or communists, it is easy for Hedges to cheerlead and enthuse over such militant (and violent) actions that happen in other countries. Leftists can cheer on rioting and rebellion in other countries, but when it happens where they live, that’s a whole different story. We saw this with both American and British “middle-class” leftists last year.


These leftists saw the events in Egypt, where poor and working people fought against cops and soldiers for freedom and a better standard of living, and were straining their voices screaming support for the occupiers of Tahrir Square and encouraging them to fight on, even when confronted by armed police and supporters of Mubarak. But when an anti-racist, anti-police violence rebellion broke out in London, most of the left was quick to denounce it as “criminal” and even “reactionary.” Similarly, when the #Occupy movement grew in the U.S., many leftists abstained from it and denounced the anarchist attacks on businesses as “criminal” and “reactionary” (even leading some self-described socialists to bloc with liberals to impose “nonviolence” on #Occupy groups).


Second, there is the question of property damage itself. This seems to be the raison d’etre for Hedges’ article (and, for that matter, all of the criticism of the anarchists and Black Bloc).

Groups of Black Bloc protesters, for example, smashed the windows of a locally owned coffee shop in November in Oakland and looted it. It was not, as Jensen points out, a strategic, moral or tactical act. It was done for its own sake. Random acts of violence, looting and vandalism are justified, in the jargon of the movement, as components of “feral” or “spontaneous insurrection.” These acts, the movement argues, can never be organized. Organization, in the thinking of the movement, implies hierarchy, which must always be opposed. There can be no restraints on “feral” or “spontaneous” acts of insurrection. Whoever gets hurt gets hurt. Whatever gets destroyed gets destroyed.
There is a word for this — “criminal.” (ibid.)
Of course, as both Zakk Flash and I pointed out, it’s only “criminal” when it happens here. In a place like Greece or Egypt, it is legitimate “class warfare.” But this is really not the issue.


The issue here is the fetishism of property. More to the point, it is the placement of property damage above that of human suffering. It is a common condition among the exploiting and oppressing classes to value their property above that of a human life. This is true not only in the large things — such as war, where thousands, if not millions, are sent to die for the acquisition of new sources of property: natural resources; industrial facilities; labor-power; etc. — but also in the small things.


I remember an incident I witnessed about four years ago that brought this home to me. I had witnessed an accident, where a man who was obviously some kind of manager or small business owner hit a young woman rushing out of a corner store on her way to work. The crowd at the store — all poor and working people — quickly gathered around the woman to see if she was OK or needed medical attention. After someone called an ambulance (and she called her job to explain what happened), several people began to surround the man and condemn him for racing through the parking lot and not watching out for people walking. The man, with the smug arrogance that the exploiting and oppressing classes learn since birth, looked at the crowd and declared: “What about me? Look at the damage to my vehicle!” If someone hadn’t coaxed this guy back into his truck, he surely would have been far more damaged than his Cadillac Escalade (which only had a few scuffs on the fender).


In his speeches about the 1871 Paris Commune, Karl Marx alluded to this fact in the context of how the Parisian workers defended themselves against the approaching capitalist armies, led by Thiers, the head of the French Republic:

The Commune used fire strictly as a means of defense. They used it to stop up to the Versailles troops those long, straight avenues which Haussman had expressly opened to artillery-fire; they used it to cover their retreat, in the same way as the Versaillese, in their advance, used their shells which destroyed at least as many buildings as the fire of the Commune…. [B]The Commune knew that its opponents cared nothing for the lives of the Paris people, but cared much for their own Paris buildings. And Thiers, on the other hand, had given them notice that he would be implacable in his vengeance. No sooner had he got his army ready on one side, and the Prussians shutting the trap on the other, than he proclaimed: “I shall be pitiless! The expiation will be complete, and justice will be stern!” If the acts of the Paris working men were vandalism, it was the vandalism of defense in despair, not the vandalism of triumph, like that which the Christians perpetrated upon the really priceless art treasures of heathen [Roman] antiquity; and even that vandalism has been justified by the historian as an unavoidable and comparatively trifling concomitant to the titanic struggle between a new society arising and an old one breaking down. (“The Fall of Paris (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch06.htm),” The Civil War in France; boldface mine)
Years later, and in a different context, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., toward whom Hedges and the other liberal pacifists look as an idol and beacon of “nonviolence,” expressed a similar view:

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered. (“Beyond Vietnam (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm),” April 4, 1967; boldface mine)
This kind of property fetishism is at the center of capitalism itself. Indeed, it is part of the very bedrock of capitalism’s mode of production. Capital, in the form of property, must be elevated to a paramount status if it is to be generated. It must stand above the actual producers in society (workers), otherwise surplus value (profit) cannot be extracted from the workers’ collective ability to produce goods and services. At the same time, the producers’ ability to work must be reduced to little more than a commodity, bought and sold by the hour, the day or the week at a rate that is a mere fraction of the actual value of those same goods and services. Throughout the world, including in the U.S., that fraction is often so small that workers cannot even afford to buy the very products or services they create. They are, at once, alienated from the very goods they make and exploited by being denied the full value of their ability to work.


Because of this reality, and the fact that growing numbers are recognizing it, should we really be surprised — to say nothing of horrified — when property damage takes place? For that matter, should we be shocked when such damage comes on the heels of violent police actions, such as the use of so-called “non-lethal” weapons that send people to the hospital with brain damage and broken bones? No. While these acts are not, in the strict sense of the term, self-defense, they do represent “the vandalism of defense in despair” that Marx talked about. While it is difficult sometimes to condone acts of vandalism and property damage, especially when it has no connection to reality, it is much more difficult to condemn such actions when they are outgrowths of systematic violence and terrorism by the armed enforcers of “law and order.”


That said, it should take no one by surprise that Hedges, Jensen and the other liberals who seek to divide the #Occupy movement seize on this property fetish as their main line of attack these days. They are often little more than the conscious servants and enablers of the 1 percent — the crushing, parasitic layers of bureaucrats, officials, managers, professionals and small business owners that are the protectors and junior partners of the large capital owners. For him and other elements of this servant class (the petty bourgeoisie, in communist terminology) to denounce property damage as “open[ing] the way for hundreds or thousands of peaceful marchers to be discredited by a handful of hooligans” is merely par for the course.


It exposes their role in the very class warfare that Hedges paradoxically hailed in Greece: as servants of the 1 percent who are trying to parasitically attach themselves to a movement that derives its dynamism from its political independence and drain it of its lifeblood, in order to make it, as Jensen says in Hedges’ article, “work with the system” — the very system that so frustrated and angered people that they felt like they had no recourse but to step outside of “the system” and … occupy!


The last decade-plus has exposed the naked dictatorship of the capitalists and their “middle class” administrators for what it is. So-called “anti-terrorist” laws are being used to spy on and detain political dissidents. Corporatism, the securing of the rule of the alliance of ruling classes through bureaucratism, war, police violence and austerity, has wiped out the last vestiges of the old capitalist democracy. Neo-fascist elements, from the Nazis and KKK to the neo-Confederates and “Tea Party” Nativists, are given open access to, and protection from criticism by, the media and politicians. Every opposition to corporatism and the rise of neo-fascism are attacked and demonized. Even ideas that were considered “conservative” two decades ago are denounced as “liberal” and even “socialist.” Every effort to reverse this rightward shift by “work[ing] within the system” have failed, and we as workers have been “getting screwed” every step of the way.


Enough is enough, Messers. Jensen and Hedges. We no longer wish to join you in your insanity — i.e., doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result each time. You can whinge and whine about some broken windows and ATM machines all you want. We will learn from the experience of the last five months, reorganize our movements and continue forward with or without you — preferably without you.

[Rafiq]

Not sure who this hedges fellow is, but he can go fuck himself with his non violent civil disobediance.

[o well this is ok I guess]

The bbloc "analysis" seems to be that private property laws are bad, the glass window is protected by those bad laws, so its okay to smash the window. No I think it is "breaking windows is hella fun"

I don't see what the problem here is. I don't think there is much other justification needed. Breaking windows is hella fun.

[blake 3:17]

Can't tell if this guy is trolling or if he thinks that posts on the internet are reflective of an entire movement. God liberals are dumb.

Talking bout me?

[blake 3:17]

Apologies for double post.


who is chris hedges?

Brother lost his job for criticizing the war on Iraq.

response :
Hedges is a critic of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and was also an early and vocal critic of the Iraq War. He questioned the rationale for war by the Bush administration and was critical of the early press coverage, calling it "shameful cheerleading". In May 2003, Hedges delivered a commencement address at Rockford College in Rockford, Illinois, saying: "We are embarking on an occupation that, if history is any guide, will be as damaging to our souls as it will be to our prestige and power and security."[7]

His newspaper, The New York Times, criticized his statements and issued him a formal reprimand for "public remarks that could undermine public trust in the paper's impartiality."[8] Shortly after the incident, Hedges left The New York Times to become a senior fellow at The Nation Institute, in addition to writing books and teaching.[8][9]

Tj8UlxhfJLw

[Os Cangaceiros]

I've always thought he's annoying. I know about him before he started railing against "corporate capitalism" or whatever he's on about now...someone I knew loaned me the book he wrote about the relevance of the ten commandants in today's America, can't remember what it's called though. I don't like his moralism.

[blake 3:17]

I like his moralism. His book I Don't Believe in Atheists is excellent.

[bcbm]

I see the Hedges article is getting under the skin of the rebel-against-my-mommy-by-embracing-anarchism crowd.

:rolleyes:


The two most important points the article makes have not been refuted --that blacbloc tactics (or anarchists) are anti-strategic and geared entirely toward destruction without any regard to the kind of society revolutionaries want to build in its place.

having a strategy that is different from 'let the cops beat us up so we can claim moral high ground' is not the same as not having a strategy. most anarchists today have been turned on to it sometime in the past decade. what turned them on to it? probably seeing stuff like this

http://flag.blackened.net/global/welcoming.jpg

they recognize that a militant image is as good as any flier, or lets be honest, quite a bit more interesting.

i'll just skip the equation of black bloc tactics as a whole with anarchism- doesn't deserve a response.

as for entirely geared towards destruction- no shit. thats the point of the tactic. anonymity in attack. you can wear a ski mask and smash up whole foods and gear the other 99.9% of your time towards 'the kind of society revolutionaries want to build,' indeed this is pretty much what every anarchist i've ever known does. i mean what, is holding a sign and getting the shit kicked out of you by cops 'the kind of society revolutionaries want to build?' somehow i doubt it.

though one could argue that destroying the mystification of property and attacking targets related to the reproduction of capitalism is part of building that society, but i digress.


It dies not enter into the thinking of these people that there will still be personal property and belongings in a communist society (unless you really are a primitivist), and that such laws in bourgeois society are to some extent *contradictory*. Some people need glass windows to keep out the cold or to maintain a very small business that they need to keep up a modest lifestyle.

pretty sure no one is breaking poor people's windows that keep out the cold, and the crocodile tears for small businesses is a laugh.


It is therefore not okay to smash that window, at least when theres no guarantee that such window smashing will result in an immediate revolution that will soon benefit everyone, including the owner of the window.

if you think everything pro-revolutionaries do must be for the immediate benefit of everyone, you're not going to get much of anything done.


It seems to me that occupying is a better tactic than destroying. Rather than "fuck you and your ill-gotten wealth" the message should be "this is the working people's wealth." We created this value, we want some of it back, not to destroy it.

not mutually exclusive.


I'm with Hedges on this one.

you're with being a divisive jackass airing movement issues in public? good to know.

[workersadvocate]

Some liberal who calls himself a socialist.

Those can be almost the worst kind, second perhaps only to fascists that call themselves socialist.

[bcbm]

david graeber (http://nplusonemag.com/concerning-the-violent-peace-police) and peter gelderloos (http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/09/the-surgeons-of-occupy/) do a nice job taking hedges to task

[trubkin pipeface]

I see the Hedges article is getting under the skin of the rebel-against-my-mommy-by-embracing-anarchism crowd. The two most important points the article makes have not been refuted --that blacbloc tactics (or anarchists) are anti-strategic and geared entirely toward destruction without any regard to the kind of society revolutionaries want to build in its place.

So lets take the example of a glass window. The bbloc "analysis" seems to be that private property laws are bad, the glass window is protected by those bad laws, so its okay to smash the window. It dies not enter into the thinking of these people that there will still be personal property and belongings in a communist society (unless you really are a primitivist), and that such laws in bourgeois society are to some extent *contradictory*. Some people need glass windows to keep out the cold or to maintain a very small business that they need to keep up a modest lifestyle. It is therefore not okay to smash that window, at least when theres no guarantee that such window smashing will result in an immediate revolution that will soon benefit everyone, including the owner of the window. But the bbers refuse to see such things in their single-minded anti-strategic focus on destruction.

smashing stuff is rly fun your life sounds boring. lol @ "maintaining a small business". really? how do u take urself seriously appealing to the wellbeing of the petite-bourgeoisie? there is no immediate revolution. communism prolly won't happen anyway unless you take it on faith or something. doesn't mean we're going to stop fighting. stop being a librul petite-bourgeois complainer and burn some rubbish bins. communism isn't claiming the moral high ground, it's reducing it to rubble

[blake 3:17]

you're with being a divisive jackass airing movement issues in public? good to know.

?


Those can be almost the worst kind, second perhaps only to fascists that call themselves socialist.

Hedges has a very fundamental critique of liberalism and capitalism. He's the furthest thing from a fascist.

[bcbm]

?

whats confusing? hedges is a piece of shit and i would consider any 'with' him the same. his article is a lot more than a smear piece

[blake 3:17]

So I agree with a part of his article: "The Black Bloc movement is infected with a deeply disturbing hypermasculinity. This hypermasculinity, I expect, is its primary appeal. It taps into the lust that lurks within us to destroy, not only things but human beings. "

I'm a piece of shit? Guess so according to your post. I expected better from you, bcbm.

Hedges is an honest left liberal Christian journalist who takes truth and social justice seriously. It may be relatively moderate but better than anything on offer.

[workersadvocate]

Hedges has a very fundamental critique of liberalism and capitalism. He's the furthest thing from a fascist.
I didn't say he was a fascist (yet). Of course, how much do the 1 percent need fascists when middle class liberal leftists will do the divide and conquer dirty work "like it never even happened" for cheap?
With friends like these...

They couldn't coopt readily, so they've tried to contain, neuter, divide and demoralize Occupy until some of it cracks and accepts cooption and reformist dependence safely within the system, while others either go home in retreat-defeat mode or the "troublemakers" are taken into the custody of the injustice system and/or driven off by the liberal/bureacrat peace police.

Cthulhu made an important point about property fetishism.

[blake 3:17]

I'm 37 and first encountered the Black Bloc when I was 16.

At best it's a self destructive tactic.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not sure who this hedges fellow is, but he can go fuck himself with his non violent civil disobediance.

That's assuming Hedges has got any cohesive strategy for civil disobedience.

What was really needed was a two-front polemic against Black Bloc hooliganism and against legal pacifism. Both positions are hypocritical on the subject of "diversity of tactics." The legal pacifists simply walk out when in a minority against more aggressive action, and many hooligans don't have much of a political agenda.

[bcbm]

So I agree with a part of his article: "The Black Bloc movement is infected with a deeply disturbing hypermasculinity. This hypermasculinity, I expect, is its primary appeal. It taps into the lust that lurks within us to destroy, not only things but human beings. "

agreeing with one part is different than the whole. this is one of the dumber parts, unless women are 'hypermasculine' too? this is just some 'omg violence is macho and macho is bad' shit, its probably one of the weakest parts of his 'article' (which is saying a lot).


I'm a piece of shit? Guess so according to your post. if you support smear pieces with no grounding in reality that try to isolate sections of the movement being aired in public instead of being part of a conversation happening within the movement and not in the media, then yes.


I expected better from you, bcbm.i expect better from people who claim to believe in some sort of socialism, or even 'social justice.'


Hedges is an honest left liberal Christian journalist who takes truth and social justice seriously. It may be relatively moderate but better than anything on offer.it isn't moderate though, it is openly demonizing and isolating a section of the movement in public in a way that is extremely problematic.


What was really needed was a two-front polemic against Black Bloc hooliganism and against legal pacifism. Both positions are hypocritical on the subject of "diversity of tactics." The legal pacifists simply walk out when in a minority against more aggressive action, and many hooligans don't have much of a political agenda.

fuck off

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was very specific in my words, because there are many different strands of anarchism.

Then again, your ideological tendency says it all.

[bcbm]

i was very specific in my words as well

[Die Neue Zeit]

i was very specific in my words as well

No, you weren't.


if you support smear pieces with no grounding in reality that try to isolate sections of the movement being aired in public instead of being part of a conversation happening within the movement and not in the media, then yes.

You're not a big fan of transparency, are you? Are criticisms of Black Bloc tactics supposed to be kept in-house, "within the movement," away from ordinary worker scrutiny?

[blake 3:17]

if you support smear pieces with no grounding in reality that try to isolate sections of the movement being aired in public instead of being part of a conversation happening within the movement and not in the media, then yes

I'll need to go over it a few more times. I don't think for a second that Hedges is running a smear campaign. I'm not sure how we have a conversation in the movement these days -- the rules and communication tech are all different --


i expect better from people who claim to believe in some sort of socialism, or even 'social justice.'

Don't pull this shit.

Edited to add:
You're not a big fan of transparency, are you? Are criticisms of Black Bloc tactics supposed to be kept in-house, "within the movement," away from ordinary worker scrutiny? Mayday 2000 snake march outside the Art Institute: "Black Cop White Cop They're all the same/ Police Brutality is the name of the game". My love and I moved away quickly from these idjits.

[bcbm]

No you weren't.


well you sure don't seem to be heeding them.


You're not a big fan of transparency, are you? Are criticisms of Black Bloc tactics supposed to be kept in-house, "within the movement," away from ordinary worker scrutiny?

respectful criticism is one thing, outright denunciation of this sort is another. pointing fingers and laying blame for perceived failures within the movement has no place in public talk and really should be kept to a minimum within the movement as well because it is counter-productive and destructive well beyond anything a rock through whole foods could do.


I'll need to go over it a few more times. I don't think for a second that Hedges is running a smear campaign. I'm not sure how we have a conversation in the movement these days -- the rules and communication tech are all different --

there are plenty of places online and off for movement discussion, even here. but this piece is not a discussion piece, it is singling out and denouncing other people in the movement and is absolutely a smear campaign- why else the links to john zerzan, green anarchy and the unabomber, the 'black bloc is against all organizations and, horror, the zapatistas' etc etc etc. i mean he calls it 'a cancer.' thats a smear.


Don't pull this shit.

why? people are out in the streets actively facing increasing police violence and some blowhard on the other side of the country is telling them what to do and trying to drive a wedge into the few parts of occupy that are still kicking and have teeth and thats okay? his article is hypocritical divisive crap that should be condemned, even by those who might agree with its thrust

[Die Neue Zeit]

well you sure don't seem to be heeding them.

I'm not because I expected more substantive counter-criticism from you.


respectful criticism is one thing, outright denunciation of this sort is another. pointing fingers and laying blame for perceived failures within the movement has no place in public talk and really should be kept to a minimum within the movement as well because it is counter-productive and destructive well beyond anything a rock through whole foods could do.

Oh boy, you definitely don't have much appreciation for political transparency. Bakunin's "invisible dictatorship" reigns supreme!

There's a difference between what I'm calling for, an alternative to the pointless talking over each other's heads, and sensationalist smear attacks.


i mean he calls it 'a cancer.' thats a smear

Perhaps, and folks in the middle of the relevant argument would have used less invective words.

[#FF0000]

Oh boy, you definitely don't have much appreciation for political transparency. Bakunin's "invisible dictatorship" reigns supreme!

are you really this dense

[bcbm]

I'm not because I expected more substantive counter-criticism from you.

i think i've said plenty of substance here.


Oh boy, you definitely don't have much appreciation for political transparency. Bakunin's "invisible dictatorship" reigns supreme!

the fuck are you talking about?


There's a difference between what I'm calling for, an alternative to the pointless talking over each other's heads, and sensationalist smear attacks.

feel free to elaborate.


Perhaps, and folks in the middle of the relevant argument would have used less invective words.

what?

[blake 3:17]

Been to Revolutionary Boy's Club before. Yawn.

[blake 3:17]

Do the ultralefts here even know what "Custeristic" means? Or what the reference is to?

Gotta know your history, guysy guys.

[bcbm]

this is moving along nicely

[bcbm]

Do the ultralefts here even know what "Custeristic" means? Or what the reference is to?

Gotta know your history, guysy guys.

could you put a little more condescension in your tone oh wise one?

[blake 3:17]

Do you know what it means? I'm not claiming brilliance, only experience.

[cb9's_unity]

At this stage revolutionary activity isn't about what is right or wrong. It's not about what is morally permissible or not. Right now its all about the message.

A lot of you have made a black and white split between violent and non-violent tactics, or even being pro or anti property. The fact is, the distinction isn't that clear. If any of you guys/gals wants to walk away from your laptop right now and go smash a Wall-mart window then go right ahead. I mean, all your doing is forcing a worker to clean up glass while also transferring money from Wall-mart to a window company. But I have no moral problem with it and have no intention of standing in your way.

The problem is people smashing up property at Occupy rallies or other leftist gatherings. What does this accomplish when you do this? First, as I said before, you probably make a low level employee's day a little bit shittier. I hope that fills your heart with joy. Second, you give the capitalist news media fodder to use against all anti-capitalist movements. Good for you that you just gave the right wing even more ammunition. Third, you instantly turn police brutality into an act of reaction instead of an act of aggression. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but at the moment most of the working class strongly supports a confused definition of property rights. Because they see a T.V. and a store as both being property, they become far more likely to support the police if they believe property is under attack. This popular line of logic makes leftist destruction of property unite the classes instead of dividing them. The real enemy at this point is the popular logic of the working class, which can't be smashed with bricks.

Posters like Takayuki base their revolutionary tactics off of absurdly abstracted levels of analysis. Then you get statements like this.

All violence against police, property and state is self-defence.

I won't say that I disagree with this, but I will say that from a tactics standpoint it's meaningless philosophical bullshit. From your high abstract plane all violence against police, property, and the state is justified, and then beyond all criticism. But tactics aren't primarily about justification, and there is little to nothing a priori about revolution. We must measure our actions by what effect they may realistically have, we must try to understand if our actions will increase or decrease our popularity among the working class. Real violent acts do not gain justification through through theoretical justification of the idea of violent revolution. Real violent revolutionary acts are only justified through history, by whether or not they advanced the revolution.

It is clear to me that the socialist movement is not at a stage where violence advances the cause. I recognize that it may one day, but I deeply hope it doesn't (because fuck you if you fetishize damage to any human life). At this stage, the working class has no taste for violence, it has had enough violence with the wars. It simply wants peace, stability and prosperity. Our job is not to criticize those wants as reformist or liberal, it is actually entirely the opposite of that. Our job is to promote that peace, stability, and prosperity can only be obtained through revolutionary socialism.

[bcbm]

you're not the only one here who's been around the block.

[blake 3:17]

Do you know what it means?

[bcbm]

At this stage revolutionary activity isn't about what is right or wrong. It's not about what is morally permissible or not. Right now its all about the message.

remember before there was any violence and the media was all about the message? specifically 'occupy: does it have a message?'


The problem is people smashing up property at Occupy rallies or other leftist gatherings. What does this accomplish when you do this? First, as I said before, you probably make a low level employee's day a little bit shittier. I hope that fills your heart with joy.i don't know what jobs you've worked, but having worked in the type of places that usually get a brick, i'd be a) pumped someone threw a brick through my workplace window and b) pumped to get to do something different


Second, you give the capitalist news media fodder to use against all anti-capitalist movements. Good for you that you just gave the right wing even more ammunition. you seem to be under the mistaken assumption that the news media are a neutral force. this goes back to earlier, about the 'what is the message?' all anti-capitalist movements will never get good press, and the more anti-capitalist the less friendly the press.


Third, you instantly turn police brutality into an act of reaction instead of an act of aggression.once again, same mistaken assumption. even in the absence of any violence by protesters the headline will read 'police clash with protesters.' and the police are always more than happy to make up accounts of violence if none occurs.


The real enemy at this point is the popular logic of the working class, which can't be smashed with bricks.but a few fluff pieces in the paper ought to do it!

the point really is this- every vaguely radical movement in the last i dunno forever, probably much longer, has had its violent wingnuts. the question is, how do you respond to them? debating the merits of violent tactics doesn't mean shit, they don't care. writing smear pieces like hedges' just makes everyone look bad, so that's a no go. maybe go the route of everyone from emma goldman to martin luther king jr or gandhi in not agreeing with their tactics but also refusing to condemn them or turn snitch? seems like a winner to me.

[bcbm]

Do you know what it means?

yes. i know who fred hampton is too

[blake 3:17]

Cool. Coulda just said it. Understand the intent?

[bcbm]

i understand the meaning but i don't think it applies to the bb as it did to the weather underground and i also think it is mis applied in the context of a place like oakland where much of the violence seems to be reactive to the police violence and where i would be surprised to find people going on a demo not knowing shit could kick off (oaklanders can correct me if i'm wrong). and, further, what i said before-

the point really is this- every vaguely radical movement in the last i dunno forever, probably much longer, has had its violent wingnuts. the question is, how do you respond to them? debating the merits of violent tactics doesn't mean shit, they don't care. writing smear pieces like hedges' just makes everyone look bad, so that's a no go. maybe go the route of everyone from emma goldman to martin luther king jr or gandhi in not agreeing with their tactics but also refusing to condemn them or turn snitch? seems like a winner to me.

[Ravachol]

Ya'll hear anonymous is threatening black bloc'rs? If anyone touches that window the peace police will fracture your cranium and anonymous will ruin your life forever.

The video making that claim was from an account made only a few days ago, uploading only 1 video. Anyone can claim to be part of 'anonymous', it's like saying "The black bloc decided to do X".

Besides, if you look at the kind of information released by #antisec and the rethoric used it's pretty clear they're closer to insurrectos than to hedges and the peace police.

In other words: Either troll attempt or some frustrated liberal wanting to look tough on the internet.

[blake 3:17]

i understand the meaning but i don't think it applies to the bb as it did to the weather underground

It is self defeating. I'll need to re-examine Oakland. What I found really inspiring about Occupy Toronto was how peaceful and clean it was. This was largely the case across North America.


the point really is this- every vaguely radical movement in the last i dunno forever, probably much longer, has had its violent wingnuts. the question is, how do you respond to them? debating the merits of violent tactics doesn't mean shit, they don't care. writing smear pieces like hedges' just makes everyone look bad, so that's a no go. maybe go the route of everyone from emma goldman to martin luther king jr or gandhi in not agreeing with their tactics but also refusing to condemn them or turn snitch? seems like a winner to me.

This seems like more self defeating. I'm glad there have been responses to Hedges, and some serious thinking about tactics and strategy. Within the movement, there needs to be some degree of discipline.

I'm totally down with Goldman and MLK, not so keen on Gandhi.

We do need to figure out ways to talk about these issues in thoughtful not in a total panic kind of ways.

Criticism of tactics or strategy shouldn't be considered snitching.

[bcbm]

It is self defeating. I'll need to re-examine Oakland. What I found really inspiring about Occupy Toronto was how peaceful and clean it was. This was largely the case across North America.

occupy here has been completely peaceful and clean, going so far as to move to a site where they don't even bother the city.

the result is hardly inspiring.


This seems like more self defeating. I'm glad there have been responses to Hedges, and some serious thinking about tactics and strategy.

actually very little of what i've seen from hedges or those who disagree qualifies in my mind as serious thinking about tactics and strategy. i think the argument of violence v. non-violence is a non starter and has very little strategic implications.


Within the movement, there needs to be some degree of discipline.

how?


I'm totally down with Goldman and MLK, not so keen on Gandhi.

my point wasn't their actions in the grand scope but their response to violence in their respective movements.


We do need to figure out ways to talk about these issues in thoughtful not in a total panic kind of ways.

face to face, in assemblies.


Criticism of tactics or strategy shouldn't be considered snitching.

veiled calls for people to be removed shouldn't be taken lightly.

[cb9's_unity]

remember before there was any violence and the media was all about the message? specifically 'occupy: does it have a message?'

If I remember correctly it was more of the police brutality than anything else. The capitalist state is going to have a hard time respecting even vaguely anti-capitalist movements whether they are violent or not. If your large enough, anti-capitalist enough, and persistent enough the police aren't going to need a reason to become brutal.


i don't know what jobs you've worked, but having worked in the type of places that usually get a brick, i'd be a) pumped someone threw a brick through my workplace window and b) pumped to get to do something differentI guess I have no empirical evidence to show that most people don't like cleaning up broken glass. Though most people I know want to go to work, do their job, and deal with as little bullshit as possible. However, my point is still that in all probability what a worker is still going to be more directly effected than the employer.


you seem to be under the mistaken assumption that the news media are a neutral force. this goes back to earlier, about the 'what is the message?' all anti-capitalist movements will never get good press, and the more anti-capitalist the less friendly the press.I'm not dumb enough to believe the capitalist media is going to give a truly anti-capitalist movement a real chance, and I made sure not to imply that.

It's much more complex than than good or bad media. All sectors of the media tried to diminish the anti-capitalist section of the Occupy movement. However, news articles don't simply read "Occupy movement bad" or "Occupy movement good." They have to have content, they have to select and/or manipulate facts to either demonize the movement as anti-capitalist or marginalize the anti-capitalist segments within it. When you have video of people smashing up windows and burning flags your making the bourgeois medias job really fucking easy. The are always gonna be pointing their rhetorical guns at us, but it doesn't follow that it's fine to give them more ammunition.

At a moment of increasing sympathy for the Occupy movement we simply can't afford to give the bourgeois media anything. They can do a lot less against us with video of peaceful yet passionate protest than they can with evidence of looting.


once again, same mistaken assumption. even in the absence of any violence by protesters the headline will read 'police clash with protesters.' and the police are always more than happy to make up accounts of violence if none occurs.Just because they can make up stories doesn't mean a lot of working class people will believe them. It's not as if people aren't aware of the tendency towards police brutality. These things mean that even 'police clash with protestors' is better than 'protestors destroy property.' At this moment there is more universal resentment of the bourgeois state than bourgeois property. We are at such a pathetically apathetic stage in America that it is a struggle just to keep the movement from losing sympathy. A headline that shows the state going against the people is a net win for us at this point.


but a few fluff pieces in the paper ought to do it!Oh wow, weren't you just complaining about condescension?

The left needs to find a way to put away its extremely petty differences and build a common platform with which we can come together and criticize the general political opinions of the working class.

That the working class has so many bourgeois views is the single most pressing issue that faces us right now. I think it will take much more than a few pamphlets from tiny ideological groups to do anything. As long as we are content to remain fictionalized we are content to let the bourgeois media dominate the political narrative without serious challenge. Though this is an issue that will require serious time to deal with.


the point really is this- every vaguely radical movement in the last i dunno forever, probably much longer, has had its violent wingnuts. the question is, how do you respond to them? debating the merits of violent tactics doesn't mean shit, they don't care. writing smear pieces like hedges' just makes everyone look bad, so that's a no go. maybe go the route of everyone from emma goldman to martin luther king jr or gandhi in not agreeing with their tactics but also refusing to condemn them or turn snitch? seems like a winner to me.Their are different ways to condemn those wingnuts. Obviously I wouldn't condemn them as criminals as Hedges does. And to turn a person in for smashing a window is infinitely worse than smashing a window. However, those who blindly destroy property are very clearly anti-revolutionary in the sense that their fetish of destruction is as damaging to the movement as the liberal or social-democratic class collaboration is.

[bcbm]

i don't think playing to the media or winning/losing 'public sympathy' matter all that much, so not gonna bother with that besides 'no press is bad press'


owever, those who blindly destroy property are very clearly anti-revolutionary in the sense that their fetish of destruction is as damaging to the movement as the liberal or social-democratic class collaboration is.

well luckily i dont think most of it is done 'blindly'

[ed miliband]

The "black bloc" just provides grist to the Faux News propaganda machine. I remember the Days of Rage and we don't need any Mark Rudd/Bernardine Dohrn wannabes repeating the same Custeristic and adventuristic errors of the past.

gramps, think about the way the world has changed since the 'days of rage'; modern surveillance makes anonymity nearly impossible - if you engage in direct action and you don't mask up you will very likely be caught

[Die Neue Zeit]

i think i've said plenty of substance here.

the fuck are you talking about?

I already said what I had to say about criticisms of Black Bloc tactics. "Within the movement" is very deficient on the score of political transparency.


Been to Revolutionary Boy's Club before. Yawn.

"Diversity of tactics" is just a cover for being against that specific unity in action which is unity in class-strugglist action.


It is self defeating. I'll need to re-examine Oakland. What I found really inspiring about Occupy Toronto was how peaceful and clean it was. This was largely the case across North America.

I wonder how professional it was, too. Occupy London had an explicit no-drugs-or-alcohol policy. Care to share your insights here?

[The Douche]

Been to Revolutionary Boy's Club before. Yawn.

Sexist. Defying the police and attacking employers who threaten their workers is something that can only be done by boys, huh?


LOL at all the utter fucking morons in this thread who find themselves on the same side with Chris Hedges, that dude is the definition of left wing of capital.

[thriller]

Article puts all black blocer's into one group. He's doing the same exact thing as his 'enemy': taking certain individuals and labeling anyone associated with them as part of their group and ideology. Why he no see that?

[cb9's_unity]

i don't think playing to the media or winning/losing 'public sympathy' matter all that much, so not gonna bother with that besides 'no press is bad press'

I'm not sure what else there is besides public sympathy. I mean our whole goal is to get the public sympathetic to socialism right? Or is it just to be abstractly correct all the time?

And yah, I guess no press is bad press if your just looking towards growing some clique of people that smash property. But bad press is better than no press when a movement is finally starting up that isn't directly connected to the democrats or republicans. This is the first autonomous political movement I have ever seen in my life time and some people are making it look like immature hooliganism in eyes of many working class people.

It fucking sucks if the 'break shit up' people double their numbers while destroying a unique vehicle for expression that isn't directly controlled by either party or the media. It's also not playing to the media if what your doing is, in it's real effects, turning off working people to freer modes of thought.


well luckily i dont think most of it is done 'blindly'It is clearly blind to its consequences. Even if its not blind to its abstract correctness.

[The Douche]

The only press revolutionaries can ever get is bad press, fuck the media.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

The only press revolutionaries can ever get is bad press, fuck the media.
But why help them with their job?

[The Douche]

But why help them with their job?

Obviously you don't understand what I said.

[leninista]

Some liberal who calls himself a socialist.

Actually, no, he 's a capitalist, he's quoted in that 2-hour BookTV interview as saying that there's "nothing wrong with capitalism" and we just need to get back to a "version" of capitalism that hasn't "lost its way."

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Obviously you don't understand what I said.
We're going to get bad press anyway you look at it, but I'm not going to use that as an excuse to give them as much material to use and lose public sympathy. I have no problem defending ourselves against the cops when we're marching or when they try to raid our camps. Doing stuff like the port shutdowns are steps in the right direction. The media will look at all those things and try and paint them in a bad light but people seem to be pretty supportive of these things even though the media creates a shitstorm out of them. But when it comes to 50 dressed in black going around randomly breaking windows that's a whole different thing. I'm not so much worried about the media but everyday people's reaction to these actions. It makes us all look like adolescences who have a fetish for smashing windows. It's easy enough to talk about how people need to defend themselves against the cops when you're not doing anything. But when you're going around breaking windows and shit people think that justifies the cops cracking down.

I've tried defending those actions a thousand times to people who were being critical of the occupy movement because of this, it never works.

[The Douche]

We're going to get bad press anyway you look at it, but I'm not going to use that as an excuse to give them as much material to use and lose public sympathy. I have no problem defending ourselves against the cops when we're marching or when they try to raid our camps. Doing stuff like the port shutdowns are steps in the right direction. The media will look at all those things and try and paint them in a bad light but people seem to be pretty supportive of these things even though the media creates a shitstorm out of them. But when it comes to 50 dressed in black going around randomly breaking windows that's a whole different thing. I'm not so much worried about the media but everyday people's reaction to these actions. It makes us all look like adolescences who have a fetish for smashing windows. It's easy enough to talk about how people need to defend themselves against the cops when you're not doing anything. But when you're going around breaking windows and shit people think that justifies the cops cracking down.

I've tried defending those actions a thousand times to people who were being critical of the occupy movement because of this, it never works.

The only real black bloc action that has occurred in the occupy movement, has been the anti-capitalist march during the first port shutdown in Oakland. And it was a couple thousand people who attacked businesses who threatened to fire employees participating in the strike, and banks. All of those are legitimate targets for the expression of solidarity and the rage of the workers and dispossessed.

It doesn't matter if we destroy property or not, we will be attacked by the press. Your logic is flawed, and when you attack other people in the movement, like Hedges has, you stand arm in arm with the ruling class.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

The only real black bloc action that has occurred in the occupy movement, has been the anti-capitalist march during the first port shutdown in Oakland. And it was a couple thousand people who attacked businesses who threatened to fire employees participating in the strike, and banks. All of those are legitimate targets for the expression of solidarity and the rage of the workers and dispossessed.

It doesn't matter if we destroy property or not, we will be attacked by the press. Your logic is flawed, and when you attack other people in the movement, like Hedges has, you stand arm in arm with the ruling class.
It was a couple thousand people who attacked businesses? It looked like a dozen people, maybe two dozen, doing it while other people stood by and watched or actually tried to stop them. Why is my logic flawed. I just said we would be attacked by the press, but that doesn't automatically mean people are going to side with the press. It just so happens that when people destroy property others seem to stop being so supportive. That's what my experience with people who are not too political who were drawn to it were saying to me.

I agree what Hedges did was wrong and stupid, like I said I try defending the actions. But I don't really see it as very conducive for any movement right now that is trying to get workers on their side. I tried reading Hedges article and could barely get passed the first paragraph it was so stupid.

[The Douche]

You're wrong in claiming that there only a few dozen people participating in that action. The only way you could claim that is if you haven't seen the videos. I have seen plenty of footage and know plenty of people who were there.

There were maybe a dozen people trying to stop property destruction, and trying to stop it by physically attacking protesters. Meanwhile there were thousands participating and cheering.


Destroying property doesn't hurt or build the movement, its just a natural part of the movement, if you look at social unrest throughout history its just a fact of the matter that people break windows and shit.

[thriller]

For people who argue that black bloc actions using property damage can give the Left a bad name, how is it any different than striking workers damaging business property?

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm not sure what else there is besides public sympathy. I mean our whole goal is to get the public sympathetic to socialism right? Or is it just to be abstractly correct all the time?

No, the goal is to radicalize and agitate. The goal is to be active in making change, no matter how small and trivial for no other reason than it's the only option available.
No one gives a fuck about sympathy, least of all the 'public.' The 'public' sat by idly while Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Pakistan were bombed into oblivion. Children murdered, thrown on the side of the road. Whole cities filled with holes. The 'public' sits by while their corporations rape and pillage foreign countries in their name.

The point here is that 'the public' is a meaningless fucking term. You cannot 'get public sympathy'. So let's get over the notion that we need to 'appeal' to 'the public.'


And yah, I guess no press is bad press if your just looking towards growing some clique of people that smash property. But bad press is better than no press when a movement is finally starting up that isn't directly connected to the democrats or republicans. This is the first autonomous political movement I have ever seen in my life time and some people are making it look like immature hooliganism in eyes of many working class people.

Don't be upset when the "first autonomous political movement" involves people who think differently than you. Seriously.


It fucking sucks if the 'break shit up' people double their numbers while destroying a unique vehicle for expression that isn't directly controlled by either party or the media. It's also not playing to the media if what your doing is, in it's real effects, turning off working people to freer modes of thought.

They aren't "destroying a unique vehicle for expression." For many people, breaking shit is a vehicle for expression. You are applying your narrow-ass view of what a 'vehicle' can be to a broad spectrum of people who see things differently.

- August

[Dunk]

I understand this is indicative of the struggle for emerging class consciousness, etc, but sometimes, I just want to scream WHO GIVES A FUCK WHAT SOME LIBERAL THINKS?

[bcbm]

"Within the movement" is very deficient on the score of political transparency.
try reading what i actually said again

respectful criticism is one thing, outright denunciation of this sort is another. pointing fingers and laying blame for perceived failures within the movement has no place in public talk and really should be kept to a minimum within the movement as well because it is counter-productive and destructive well beyond anything a rock through whole foods could do.
you can be transparent without denouncing and smearing other parts of the movement. get it?


'm not sure what else there is besides public sympathy. I mean our whole goal is to get the public sympathetic to socialism right?

we're not trying to win a popularity contest. in the offering of alternatives and opening of ruptures in the social peace we are doing what we need to do.


And yah, I guess no press is bad press if your just looking towards growing some clique of people that smash property. But bad press is better than no press when a movement is finally starting up that isn't directly connected to the democrats or republicans. This is the first autonomous political movement I have ever seen in my life time and some people are making it look like immature hooliganism in eyes of many working class people.

the institutional left is desperately trying to co-opt occupy and has been since day one. people like hedges are very much part of this wing. they want it to be peaceful and play nice with those in power- thats why he talks about 'appealing to those with a conscience'- and its 'some people' maintaining a hostile posture that is keeping it 'autonomous.' plenty of other occupy sites have been removed or channeled into politics as usual.


It fucking sucks if the 'break shit up' people double their numbers while destroying a unique vehicle for expression that isn't directly controlled by either party or the media. It's also not playing to the media if what your doing is, in it's real effects, turning off working people to freer modes of thought.

if that is all it takes to 'destroy' it, it wasn't worth shit to begin with.

[The Douche]

Oakland disproves Hedges' theory so blatantly. When the camp was destroyed and attacked the liberal elements who wanted non-violence and dialogue with the state started their own new camp, with the intent to set an example of how to "do it right". This camp was out of the way of the day-to-day operation of the city, and didn't interfere with anybody or anything. It was attacked and dispersed by the police as well.

[Ele'ill]

We're going to get bad press anyway you look at it, but I'm not going to use that as an excuse to give them as much material to use and lose public sympathy. I have no problem defending ourselves against the cops when we're marching or when they try to raid our camps. Doing stuff like the port shutdowns are steps in the right direction. The media will look at all those things and try and paint them in a bad light but people seem to be pretty supportive of these things even though the media creates a shitstorm out of them. But when it comes to 50 dressed in black going around randomly breaking windows that's a whole different thing. I'm not so much worried about the media but everyday people's reaction to these actions. It makes us all look like adolescences who have a fetish for smashing windows. It's easy enough to talk about how people need to defend themselves against the cops when you're not doing anything. But when you're going around breaking windows and shit people think that justifies the cops cracking down.

I've tried defending those actions a thousand times to people who were being critical of the occupy movement because of this, it never works.

There's a couple trends going on in this thread from the weird 'can't upset anyone at all ever even for a moment' camp. The media has had a stready stream of urine on occupy from the very beginning and usually does with all left leaning movements- whether it's 'tent ropes around trees causing trillions in damage' to 'too much poop gonna poison ground water' stuff the media and the cops will redirect their stream of piss accordingly. So no, you don't have to worry about giving or not giving them stuff to talk about.

[A Marxist Historian]

I'll need to go over it a few more times. I don't think for a second that Hedges is running a smear campaign. I'm not sure how we have a conversation in the movement these days -- the rules and communication tech are all different --



Don't pull this shit.

Edited to add: Mayday 2000 snake march outside the Art Institute: "Black Cop White Cop They're all the same/ Police Brutality is the name of the game". My love and I moved away quickly from these idjits.

It is important that everybody in the movement, Black Bloc or whatever, be defended against the cops. An injury to one is an injury to all.

But nothing wrong with "dividing the movement," it badly needs division between the sheep and the goats at this point. But the correct line of division is over principles not tactics.

The problem with both liberal pacifists and Black Bloc smashing things is fun junkies is that neither are working class positions. One is petty bourgeois, and the other is lumpen. (And please, let's stop nattering about "civil disobedience," an utterly bourgeois conception in every way.)

If in New York the biggest problem is the liberal reformists who just want to clean up Wall Street instead of abolishing the system, and probably are going to end up voting for Obama this fall, here on the West Coast increasingly many of the anarchists moving to the fore are anti-union and therefore objectively anti-working-class, whatever their self delusions to the contrary that OWS somehow "represents the working class" better than the ILWU does. I'll believe that when workers start paying dues to it or actually follow it when it calls them out on strike.

But I gotta ask, what the hell is wrong with that anarchistic snake march in front of the Art Institute (in New York I think?)

If their chant was "Black Cop White Cop They're all the same/ Police Brutality is the name of the game", well, truer words were rarely spoke.

In New York City in particular, it is exactly the black cops who are most to the fore with the ultra-racist "stop and frisk" program, which turns any New Yorker who isn't white into a second class citizen likely to be thrown in jail whenever a cop feels like it. Like a soft core version of what happened to Jews in the first couple years of Nazi Germany.

-M.H.-

[workersadvocate]

Oakland disproves Hedges' theory so blatantly. When the camp was destroyed and attacked the liberal elements who wanted non-violence and dialogue with the state started their own new camp, with the intent to set an example of how to "do it right". This camp was out of the way of the day-to-day operation of the city, and didn't interfere with anybody or anything. It was attacked and dispersed by the police as well.

Just out if curiousity and to test hypothesis, did the liberal out-of-the-way camp attract non-organized spontaneous working class support? Not talking about made-for-TV crowds brought by unions, Democrats, liberal-left and their college groupies.
Because it would seem that once such elements control the movement, they try to minimize or lockdown any independent unknown quantities. They don't want anyone who isn't there to serve their agendas, so they don't expand into the risky masses.

[The Douche]

Just out if curiousity and to test hypothesis, did the liberal out-of-the-way camp attract non-organized spontaneous working class support? Not talking about made-for-TV crowds brought by unions, Democrats, liberal-left and their college groupies.
Because it would seem that once such elements control the movement, they try to minimize or lockdown any independent unknown quantities. They don't want anyone who isn't there to serve their agendas, so they don't expand into the risky masses.

No, because most non-organized workers prone to spontaneous support of left-leaning/revolutionary/communist movements end up being more interested in those who are willing to actively confront systems of oppression.


here on the West Coast increasingly many of the anarchists moving to the fore are anti-union and therefore objectively anti-working-class

Fuck off. Because I oppose mediating institutions whose existence is based on capital, I am anti-working class? This is so fucking stupid. Usually when people have a problem with the anti-union position they can at least present some sort of argument, and can see how it is possible for revolutionaries to oppose unionism.

[Ele'ill]

Also, what do some of those user's here who are opposed to property destruction or general ruckus think of the ILWU action against EGT where the grain was dumped? The argument can't be that the ILWU action was direct action that served a purpose because the main anti-property destruction current focuses on image and seems to be that 'violent' direct action alienates people even if it serves some purpose- however small or large.

[x359594]

Concerning Hedges, FW Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz wrote: "For those who believe in non-violence (pacifism) as a kind of spiritual practice, I'm sure that non-violence as a tactic is unacceptable. In the past revolutionary movements have taken place side by side with pacifist movements, such as the NLF and the Buddhists in Vietnam during the US American war there. I don't recall the Buddhists invoking non-violence to the NLF. Same with the 1960s in the US, with the pacifists and SDS, Black Panther Party, etc. We need to think about why at this time in the USA (uniquely), there is such a horror of any kind of militancy on the part of a majority (I would say) of activists. I think there definitely are some race, class, and gender issues involved. Obviously, we are not getting far in slinging mud across the divide. One thing I'm certain of, and I'm not at all settled in my own thinking about how we might build a mass movement in the US, is that Chris Hedges' intervention has made dialogue much worse, that his diatribe was nothing but destructive. [emphasis added.] He is a writer, and a good one, new to the movement, and he should be a little more humble. It's true he has been all over the world in the midst of war and has become an ardent Christian pacifist, but he knows almost nothing about US history or society other than the master story."

[x359594]

A cogent rebuttal from David Graeber: http://nplusonemag.com/concerning-the-violent-peace-police

[GoddessCleoLover]

The late Fred Hampton, a great BPP revolutionary, was no pacifist, but he did understand that mindless insurrectionism was not a sound revolutionary strategy, hence he coined the term "Custeristic". The Days of Rage, the Symbionsese Liberation Army, and the "black bloc" all share a love for the symbolic act insurrection, even when the masses of the working class are not even in the vicinity of supporting insurrection. If we are going to make a revolution, we have to do so with the support of the working class. Outlandish acts of insurrectionary violence only isolate us from the working class, hence the term, objectively counter-revolutionary.

[Minima]

As occupy is a predominantly middle class movement (at least in the states) shouldn't we give people trying to articulate it's logic more patience? Hedges is really not so bad Imo. he's not half as bad as most occupiers.

I've heard people argue that the criticism of hedges is pretty spot on in terms of the type of people who made up the "black bloc" of occupy vancouver (there wasn't even one, with the few people who self-identified as such commiting to 'non-violence'). We have much less of an anarchist scene then in cities in the states, and the criticism of "life-stylism" is much more poignant here.

As after the first day and second day, which saw mostly middle class participants, the majority of activist activity did center around "organizing" in face of the chaos afterword. Being 'willing to fuck shit up' become a crude distinction to separate oneself from those "liberals" usually combined with identity politics, or manifest as just some countercultural aesthetic (punk for instance).

For me it was just a kind of stupid countercultural gimmick.

the city was still reeling from when a bunch of working class heros rioted over the loss of a canucks game, that was the political atmosphere, and if you were genuine about occupy you knew that breaking more windows was probably about the stupidest thing you could do.

they didn't have time to articulate some fine formulation of "diversity of tactics" that wouldn't just turn into an excuse for idiocy. it was too messy, there were too many idiots, etc.

[GoddessCleoLover]

When the level of struggle reach a sort of critical mass like in Athens where masses or workers want to take direction action against the symbols of the bourgeois state, then revolutionaries ought to go to the barricades. Gangs of lack-clad balaclava shrouded petit-bourgeois youth breaking windows is just a case of an post-adolescents playing at revolution. It does actual harm to any potential there might be to develop a mass revolutionary movement as it allows the bourgeois press to caricature us as being impulsive and mindlessly violent.

[Minima]

symbolic demonstrations right?, meetings, love-ins, marches every single day for every single cause, online petitions, solidarity for everbody, indignified denunciation of everybody against each other, denunciations of politicians, wall street, the 1%, imperialists, 'false allies,' men, people who eat meat, genetic science,

how could you form a serious black bloc from that enviroment?

how do you fight this kind of logic, how do you argue against every single action that some idiot proposes just because you think the problems of society are systemic and reach further than someone's particular pet cause.

All the time when people were trying to argue with you about the federal reserve, the melting point of steel, chemtrails, etc. there are homeless drug addicts dying in your tents, it's freezing and you can't think etc.

[Os Cangaceiros]

haha I can't believe that anarchistnews.org actually has a news section called "Hedgegate". :lol::closedeyes:

[Lucretia]

Where are all these people the black bloc sympathizers think they are responding to? I don't see any pacifist claims being made in this thread. What I do see are people who think that "we're tired of getting beaten so we're going to be violent in response to violence" is not a strategy. It's an impulse borne of exhaustion, fear, and anger. Whether defensive violent tactics are advisable depends upon the context of the situation. When your little band of 30 anarchists is smashing the windows of people who make less money than your parents and are trying to save up for their children's college education (how bourgeois of me to take people's well-being into consideration!), when all that's going to come of it is negative news coverage and potentially jail sentences, it's obvious that the costs far outweigh the (nonexistent) benefits. When it is advisable is where class struggle leaps from its existing boundaries, and the outcome between struggling classes is determined on the streets instead of in people's television-blaring living rooms.

I feel like I am talking to supporters of the Symbionese Liberation Army. Breaking windows and kidnapping young women will not spark a revolution, even if the young women in question are from bourgeois families. It will just ruin lives. It's thuggery and criminality, pure and simple.

[bcbm]

class baiting yaaaawn

[RedHal]

Hedges based his research by listening to hours of Anarchy Radio by Zerzan and reading Green Anarchy, I can see why it would make a reformist like Hedges rage:laugh:

[Ele'ill]

Where are all these people the black bloc sympathizers think they are responding to? I don't see any pacifist claims being made in this thread. What I do see are people who think that "we're tired of getting beaten so we're going to be violent in response to violence" is not a strategy. It's an impulse borne of exhaustion, fear, and anger. Whether defensive violent tactics are advisable depends upon the context of the situation. When your little band of 30 anarchists is smashing the windows of people who make less money than your parents and are trying to save up for their children's college education (how bourgeois of me to take people's well-being into consideration!), when all that's going to come of it is negative news coverage and potentially jail sentences, it's obvious that the costs far outweigh the (nonexistent) benefits. When it is advisable is where class struggle leaps from its existing boundaries, and the outcome between struggling classes is determined on the streets instead of in people's television-blaring living rooms.

I feel like I am talking to supporters of the Symbionese Liberation Army. Breaking windows and kidnapping young women will not spark a revolution, even if the young women in question are from bourgeois families. It will just ruin lives. It's thuggery and criminality, pure and simple.

And what of the militant direct action and property destruction that took place in Longview Washington?

[Die Neue Zeit]

But nothing wrong with "dividing the movement," it badly needs division between the sheep and the goats at this point. But the correct line of division is over principles not tactics.

Sure there's something wrong with that division, if that division doesn't lead to unity in class-strugglist action.


The problem with both liberal pacifists and Black Bloc smashing things is fun junkies is that neither are working class positions. One is petty bourgeois, and the other is lumpen. (And please, let's stop nattering about "civil disobedience," an utterly bourgeois conception in every way.)

How is civil disobedience "bourgeois"? Sorry, but the Anti-Socialist Laws in Imperial Germany were scrapped because of mass civil disobedience by militant workers.


If in New York the biggest problem is the liberal reformists who just want to clean up Wall Street instead of abolishing the system, and probably are going to end up voting for Obama this fall, here on the West Coast increasingly many of the anarchists moving to the fore are anti-union and therefore objectively anti-working-class, whatever their self delusions to the contrary that OWS somehow "represents the working class" better than the ILWU does. I'll believe that when workers start paying dues to it or actually follow it when it calls them out on strike.

Actually, OWS better represents working-class political interests than the ILWU by leaps and miles. That's because the latter confines itself to mere labour disputes, no matter how radical the rhetoric or actual beliefs.

[Ele'ill]

Actually, OWS better represents working-class political interests than the ILWU by leaps and miles. That's because the latter confines itself to mere labour disputes, no matter how radical the rhetoric or actual beliefs.

As opposed to occupy doing what?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Occupy doing, among other things:

- Creative protest action
- Raising political issues not in public awareness
- Refusing to be co-opted by mainstream institutions
- Drawing attention to police brutality

[Don't worry, I've criticized OWS for not issuing "demands," but that's another story.]

[The Douche]

Fuck all you mother fuckers calling me bourgeois or petty-bourgeois or petit-bourgeois, or lumpen, or whatever other term is cool right now (middle class, lumpen, hooligan, hoodlum etc). Every single one of you will be left in the dust when communism happens. And you'll be sitting on this website or some other pedestal crying about some assinine, obscure, leftist talking point, while we make communism, despite what your parties, your unions, or your general assemblies say.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Cool heads are needed here. I didn't call you those things, despite my strong disagreement with "communization" theory and various post-modernist stuff.

[The Douche]

^^^ Cool heads are needed here. I didn't call you those things, despite my strong disagreement with "communization" theory and various post-modernist stuff.

I don't even know what it means to be "post-modern". People an apply whatever cool philosophical terms they want to my ideas, but I'm never gonna know what shit like that means. I'm a high school dropout, I have literally no frame of reference for that.

And if you disagree with "communization" then you're a fool, cause you can look around (whether we talk about history or today) and see that workers will act in their interests despite what the unions, the bosses, the party, or the movement says, when it becomes necessary for them to do so.

[Die Neue Zeit]

And if you disagree with "communization" then you're a fool, cause you can look around (whether we talk about history or today) and see that workers will act in their interests despite what the unions, the bosses, the party, or the movement says, when it becomes necessary for them to do so.

FYI, "communization" refers to a different process than things like Mutual Aid, Alternative Culture, politicization, and so on. Those three things and others are instances of workers organizing to act in their interests.

[The Douche]

FYI, "communization" refers to a different process than things like Mutual Aid, Alternative Culture, politicization, and so on. Those three things and others are instances of workers organizing to act in their interests.

Communization is eactly those things. Communization means making communism reality.

[x359594]

...Whether defensive violent tactics are advisable depends upon the context of the situation...

Precisely. As Graeber explains in the link I posted above, black bloc tactics are employed by militants of whatever ideological persuasion, from Marxist-Leninists to anarchists.

One tactic is to draw the police away from the most vulnerable. In Oakland (and Hedges was specifically talking about the 1/28 confrontation) black blocers freed some people who'd been cuffed and segregated by distracting their cop guards. And the "local coffee shop" (actually a corporate chain store) window that was smashed, was smashed by a 20-something male unmasked and not wearing black.

[praxis1966]

It is self defeating. I'll need to re-examine Oakland.

Reexamine? I think you need to actually come to Oakland sometime because frankly, I don't think you have any clue what the situation is like here.


Been to Revolutionary Boy's Club before. Yawn.

That doesn't sound like very much fun. You should come to the Bay Area, where girls black bloc, too.


When your little band of 30 anarchists is smashing the windows of people who make less money than your parents and are trying to save up for their children's college education (how bourgeois of me to take people's well-being into consideration!),

It's not bourgeois, but it is completely ignorant. Not once has there been smashing of working class property here in Oakland... leastways not at any event I've been to and especially not by the black bloc, so your point is moot.


when all that's going to come of it is negative news coverage and potentially jail sentences, it's obvious that the costs far outweigh the (nonexistent) benefits. When it is advisable is where class struggle leaps from its existing boundaries, and the outcome between struggling classes is determined on the streets instead of in people's television-blaring living rooms.

Since you're so much smarter than the rest of us, do be so kind as to point out when that is, yeah?


I feel like I am talking to supporters of the Symbionese Liberation Army. Breaking windows and kidnapping young women will not spark a revolution, even if the young women in question are from bourgeois families. It will just ruin lives. It's thuggery and criminality, pure and simple.

If that's the feeling you're getting then I'm not sure you know what either the SLA were or the black bloc is. You're probably right in suggesting that (in and of itself) smashing windows won't go a long way towards fomenting revolution, but that's hardly the totality of what we're talking about no matter what the Hedges piece says... And can I just comment on what a false and fairly disgusting conflation you just made? Breaking windows and kidnapping young women... When have you known black blocs to ever to kidnap any goddamned body? And how the fuck are the two acts even comparable? Stop being hyperbolic, for the love of Mike.


A cogent rebuttal from David Graeber: http://nplusonemag.com/concerning-the-violent-peace-police

And in my mind the only one that really matters considering Graeber's participated in black blocs and Hedges is a fuckin' n00b to activism by comparison.


The only real black bloc action that has occurred in the occupy movement, has been the anti-capitalist march during the first port shutdown in Oakland.

That's not exactly true. There was one on J28 as well, but they didn't engage in property destruction like the first one did either. The vandalism was, AFAIK, largely confined to City Hall and took place much later in the evening and involved a completely different set of folks. The J28 bloc was there specifically to confront the police.

If anybody actually wants a decent account of what did go on that day (and no, I'm not singling you out cmoney, I really do mean anybody), here's a 20 minute video that explains it pretty accurately: http://vimeo.com/36256273

[human strike]

I'm sick of people accusing militant or violent tactics of being macho (not saying they never are, mind). Far from being a manifestation of hypermasculinity, as Chris Hedges and others tell us, black block and similar tactics are a manifestation of a transcendence of gender. The anonymity vis a vis personal identity "blocking-up" offers extends to gender identity. Black bloc is an attack on gender, not a reinforcement of it. Those who criticise it as being otherwise reveal their own sexist prejudices. Yes, believe it or not, women do riot. Organised feminism has its roots in rioting and vandalism. Before women were engaged in wider political processes, they rioted and these riots acted to transform woman from abstract universal to conscious actor, a force to be both recognised and reckoned with.

And yes! I am paraphrasing A.K. Thompson. :P

Also: http://memegenerator.net/Chris-Cancer-Hedges

http://g.images.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/14426614.jpg

[Ele'ill]

Regarding the black bloc tactic occurring in the occupy movement I think the one in Oakland was the biggest and maybe best representation but there have been blocs here in Portland and in Seattle and Olympia if I'm not mistaken. Our specifically non-occupy march answering Oakland's call out on the 6th of this month is another example.

Something odd I thought of today while at work was how the liberal peace police will chat it up with riot cops (when they're not in formation and scary cause then the libs are nowhere to be found), they'll point people out, do all that stuff and stand behind the ridiculous idea that the police are our friends but then during the militant marches when people start to drag dumpsters out into the street and break windows the peace police rush in and assault the people while accusing them of being undercover cops and agent provocateurs. Obviously it's complete shit but isn't that type of outing and aggressive/violent confrontation considered militant direct action? Yes, it could be considered that.

[KrasnayaRossiya]

the cancer=white liebrals

[Lucretia]

Since you're so much smarter than the rest of us, do be so kind as to point out when that is, yeah?

I am not "so much smarter than the rest of you." In fact, I think everybody here is intelligent enough to see that a group of 30 or 40 anarchists trying to be violent in the streets of Oakland or New York is not going to tip the scales in favor of revolution for the working class.


If that's the feeling you're getting then I'm not sure you know what either the SLA were or the black bloc is. You're probably right in suggesting that (in and of itself) smashing windows won't go a long way towards fomenting revolution, but that's hardly the totality of what we're talking about no matter what the Hedges piece says... And can I just comment on what a false and fairly disgusting conflation you just made? Breaking windows and kidnapping young women... When have you known black blocs to ever to kidnap any goddamned body? And how the fuck are the two acts even comparable? Stop being hyperbolic, for the love of Mike.I did not make any kind of conflation, and I never said that breaking windows is ethically in the same category as kidnapping young women. I deliberately compared the law-breaking of blacblocs to the law-breaking of the SLA in noting how isolated acts of criminality do not advance a revolutionary struggle but instead provoke major backlash from large segments of the working class who begin to suspect that these "revolutionary" movements have no regard for individuals' well-being if they are willing to risk it without much at stake (like a revolution). You think that would be the case if the working people were on the streets en masse to fight for revolution themselves? That's the difference between a defensively violent struggle being waged on the streets between classes, and a small band of self-important anarchists wanting to fuck shit up with no overarching strategic vision.

[praxis1966]

Regarding the black bloc tactic occurring in the occupy movement I think the one in Oakland was the biggest and maybe best representation but there have been blocs here in Portland and in Seattle and Olympia if I'm not mistaken. Our specifically non-occupy march answering Oakland's call out on the 6th of this month is another example.

Right, I'd heard about those. I just didn't mention them because I don't have any direct knowledge of what went on up there, plus I think the Hedges piece is primarily a reaction to Oakland.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Something odd I thought of today while at work was how the liberal peace police will chat it up with riot cops (when they're not in formation and scary cause then the libs are nowhere to be found), they'll point people out, do all that stuff and stand behind the ridiculous idea that the police are our friends but then during the militant marches when people start to drag dumpsters out into the street and break windows the peace police rush in and assault the people while accusing them of being undercover cops and agent provocateurs. Obviously it's complete shit but isn't that type of outing and aggressive/violent confrontation considered militant direct action? Yes, it could be considered that.

That's an interesting twist.


Precisely. As Graeber explains in the link I posted above, black bloc tactics are employed by militants of whatever ideological persuasion, from Marxist-Leninists to anarchists.

One tactic is to draw the police away from the most vulnerable. In Oakland (and Hedges was specifically talking about the 1/28 confrontation) black blocers freed some people who'd been cuffed and segregated by distracting their cop guards. And the "local coffee shop" (actually a corporate chain store) window that was smashed, was smashed by a 20-something male unmasked and not wearing black.

Thanks for the FYI, but that particular application is not the typical worker's perception of Black Bloc tactics. That rare kind of actual solidarity with less well-defended protesters is contrasted with the more typical smashy-smashy actions by those who then hide among the rest of the protesters, and of course it is the latter that I dismiss as hooliganism.

[Ele'ill]

I am not "so much smarter than the rest of you." In fact, I think everybody here is intelligent enough to see that a group of 30 or 40 anarchists trying to be violent in the streets of Oakland or New York is not going to tip the scales in favor of revolution for the working class.

Neither is blowing bubbles at cops. Neither is big planned permitted marches. Neither is a lot of work place organizing efforts. Neither is a general strike. We have a bag of tools- plural.





That's the difference between a defensively violent struggle being waged on the streets between classes, and a small band of self-important anarchists wanting to fuck shit up with no overarching strategic vision.

Defensive as in trying not to die while below the poverty line. Nah, I'm proactive. Sorry, but most left actions involve, to begin with, a small band of people. Whether they're self-important or not depends on the person. I'm finding your posts to be more character assassination than critical thought.

[Lucretia]

Neither is blowing bubbles at cops. Neither is big planned permitted marches. Neither is a lot of work place organizing efforts. Neither is a general strike. We have a bag of tools- plural.

Nobody here has advocated "blowing bubbles at cops." And you're right in noting that self-defense is a tactic, but it's one that -- like all tactics -- needs to be deployed strategically in order to be effective. What I see here are a lot of anti-strategic statements of ethical principle: "What do you expect us to do when the cops hit us? Sit idlely by?!"



Defensive as in trying not to die while below the poverty line. Nah, I'm proactive. Sorry, but most left actions involve, to begin with, a small band of people. Whether they're self-important or not depends on the person. I'm finding your posts to be more character assassination than critical thought.

Most left actions do begin with a small number of people, but they don't grow through that small band engaging in acts of criminality and violence. I would invite you to list a single example where one has.

[Ele'ill]

Nobody here has advocated "blowing bubbles at cops." And you're right in noting that self-defense is a tactic, but it's one that -- like all tactics -- needs to be deployed strategically in order to be effective. What I see here are a lot of anti-strategic statements of ethical principle: "What do you expect us to do when the cops hit us? Sit idlely by?!"

I guess what I was saying is that the critique should be an internal one and not general moralizing.





Most left actions do begin with a small number of people, but they don't grow through that small band engaging in acts of criminality and violence. I would invite you to list a single example where one has.

Black bloc.

[Lucretia]

I guess what I was saying is that the critique should be an internal one and not general moralizing.

This is predominantly the issue, isn't it? I have argued repeatedly on this thread that violence -- as a tactic -- should be used strategically, and only in certain very specific contexts, in the struggle for revolution. Yet here I am being accused of "general moralizing" because I am actually daring to suggest that violence isn't always the correct answer. Judging from Hedges piece, this is the sense I get of blac bloc and their supporters: any attempt to limit the use of violence by hitching it to a strategy means you are "moralizing." This position itself becomes a form of moralizing, one where detractors of unrestricted and haphazard use of violence are painted as being "with the police" or "counter-revolutionary" or frumpy pacifists without the moral mettle to make things happen.

And I'm sorry but when I asked for a specific example, I meant a specific historical example. These generally include a time and place.

[praxis1966]

I am not "so much smarter than the rest of you." In fact, I think everybody here is intelligent enough to see that a group of 30 or 40 anarchists trying to be violent in the streets of Oakland or New York is not going to tip the scales in favor of revolution for the working class.

I think I more or less just said that. However, neither is criticizing them in the comfort of your centrally heated and air conditioned living room from thousands of miles away. Anyway, it's pretty apparent you still don't have any idea of the conditions on the ground here. The whole point of J28 was an attempt at a building occupation so that OO could set up a community center and indoor shelter for those who needed it (y'know, since it rains a fuckload out here during the winter). If that's not "advancing the conditions of the working class" I dunno what is. Further, if you had even bothered to watch the video I linked to, you could see that even in the most pitched clashes with the police, there were only a few (empty) bottles thrown... That was the extent of the violence, and it came from behind the bloc. All the bloc itself did was set up shields to protect other demonstrators from rubber bullets and the like. Not one of them carried cudgels or any other similar weapon. So still, I have to wonder where it is you're getting your information... I mean, I really don't want to believe you've bought what's on sale from the mainstream media, but that's exactly what it sounds like.


I did not make any kind of conflation...

Yes you did. At it's most basic level, the word 'conflation' means "to join together," which is exactly what you did when you made an analogy between the two.


...and I never said that breaking windows is ethically in the same category as kidnapping young women.

Perhaps not, but to mention them in the same breath the way you did sure as hell suggests that's the way you think. At any rate, even if I accept this explanation, that still doesn't excuse the kind of overblown rhetorical devices you're employing.


...I deliberately compared the law-breaking of blacblocs to the law-breaking of the SLA in noting how isolated acts of criminality do not advance a revolutionary struggle but instead provoke major backlash from large segments of the working class who begin to suspect that these "revolutionary" movements have no regard for individuals' well-being.

Unbelievable. You'd think the incidents of October 25th, where there was no black bloc and people got brutalized and maimed, never happened. While we're at it, how many people are in comas as a result of J28? I tell you how many: Zero, and the cops used the exact same tactics.


You think that would be the case if the working people were on the streets en masse to fight for revolution themselves? That's the difference between a defensively violent struggle being waged on the streets between classes, and a small band of self-important anarchists wanting to fuck shit up with no overarching strategic vision.

You'd have an argument if there were only 30 or 40 people in the streets of Oakland that day. There were at least 3000.

[human strike]

Thanks for the FYI, but that particular application is not the typical worker's perception of Black Bloc tactics. That rare kind of actual solidarity with less well-defended protesters is contrasted with the more typical smashy-smashy actions by those who then hide among the rest of the protesters, and of course it is the latter that I dismiss as hooliganism.

You think that application is rare and untypical? I don't.

[Ele'ill]

This is predominantly the issue, isn't it? I have argued repeatedly on this thread that violence -- as a tactic -- should be used strategically, and only in certain very specific contexts, in the struggle for revolution. Yet here I am being accused of "general moralizing" because I am actually daring to suggest that violence isn't always the correct answer. Judging from Hedges piece, this is the sense I get of blac bloc and their supporters: any attempt to limit the use of violence by hitching it to a strategy means you are "moralizing."

My general moralizing comment was in light of this entire thread and an explanation for my previous comment.







And I'm sorry but when I asked for a specific example, I meant a specific historical example. These generally include a time and place.

Your issue was certain group tactics not catching on and asked for an example of one catching on to which I replied with Black Bloc as it has increased in size and evolved in strategy.

[praxis1966]

Neither is blowing bubbles at cops.

This is totally off topic, but it's funny you should mention that. Occupy Cal-Berkeley was reestablished yesterday and that's exactly what they were doing... Blowing tons of bubbles at reporters and dancing around with big Valentine's hearts.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Oh, sod off you little maggot. What's wrong with smashing windows? It's not the most useful act in the world...

You just answered your own question.


but there's no reason to be concerned about private property getting damaged, either. It's not supposed to be an all-family holiday, not supposed to be a picnic in the park where the family go down with their stroller to look at all the happy hippies doing their useless non-violence thing that accomplishes zero. They should hide their faces with masks - why shouldn't they? Non-violence never lead to much of any significant achievement. It's a myth they foster because they like to make sure nothing changes, and the liberal-left, like Hedges, are in on it. Reformist drivel. All violence against police, property and state is self-defence.So, any and all acts of violence, all themselves acts of provocation of violence, too, are justified, and any attempt at pragmatism is "reformist drivel."

No successful revolution in the history of the world has been driven by arbitrary, sophomoric acts of random violence. Violence is a tool like any other to be utilized in a calculated, intelligent way. Smashing the window of a neighbor or a corner shopkeeper doesn't advance the cause of the proletariat in any way. In fact, it gives pigs justification for their violence. This thwarts attempts to expose the police for what they are (soldiers for the protect of bourgeois property), and instead makes them look to the workers in general like heroes. This thwarts radicalization of the proletariat. This thwarts class consciousness. And all it manages to accomplish is wanton damage to things that most likely don't effect the bourgeoisie at all; what's likely to be damaged is the structures of the proletariat class culture.

But I suppose this is all just reformist drivel, eh?

[The Douche]

Every time people talk about "small bands of anarchists" or "self-important militants" or "angsty youth" or "masked ones" or "hooligans", it makes it immediately clear that you're brutally inexperienced with the movement.

30 or 40 anarchists? The bloc in Oakland had over 1000 participants. I've marched in black blocs with three or four thousand.

If you think that individuals who are willing and interested in direct confrontation with the police and private property are just a tiny group of white male teenagers then you've obviously never seen a black bloc in real life.

I will never understand why privileged college kids/intellectuals (the ones most often attacking militant action) can't grasp the fact that regular workers and dispossessed people are mad as fuck and want to fight against the systems which oppress them.

[Ele'ill]

In fact, it gives pigs justification for their violence.

When you look at situations where black bloc is used and situations where it isn't used the outcomes are very similar. Mass arrests and beatings. The police do not need a green light from our end to engage us.





This thwarts attempts to expose the police for what they are (soldiers for the protect of bourgeois property),

When a march here in Portland, a non militant one, assembled and took off the police were casually riding along side the march, stopping traffic etc.. At the marches with a 'black bloc' or any militant presence the police are lined up and visibly protecting every bougie store along the street, often skipping over the non-chain stores and such.



and instead makes them look to the workers in general like heroes. This thwarts radicalization of the proletariat.

I don't think much is accomplished by relying on the enemy to set the rules of engagement- applying for permits to march, buckling under dispersal orders, not being allowed to even assemble. What thwarts radicalization tends to be non-radical action and again the main theme of anti-bloc people seems to be non-confrontation, not non-property destruction. (not necessarily you or what you're saying here)

[Comrade Auldnik]

I will never understand why privileged college kids/intellectuals (the ones most often attacking militant action) can't grasp the fact that regular workers and dispossessed people are mad as fuck and want to fight against the systems which oppress them.

Making random violence beneficial to the overall movement. Q.E.D.

[Ele'ill]

Another brief comment by me (sorry, I'm not sniping you users on the other side of the debate here I'm just posting as I think of this stuff) regarding size of groups involved in actions/marches. Some actions in a city will have lower numbers because it's only two or three affinity groups. The next action that takes place in the city may have the same amount of people involved but it's completely different people from different affinity groups. Toronto had 2000 people engaging in militant direct action at the same time.

[Lucretia]

Every time people talk about "small bands of anarchists" or "self-important militants" or "angsty youth" or "masked ones" or "hooligans", it makes it immediately clear that you're brutally inexperienced with the movement.

30 or 40 anarchists? The bloc in Oakland had over 1000 participants. I've marched in black blocs with three or four thousand.

If you think that individuals who are willing and interested in direct confrontation with the police and private property are just a tiny group of white male teenagers then you've obviously never seen a black bloc in real life.

I will never understand why privileged college kids/intellectuals (the ones most often attacking militant action) can't grasp the fact that regular workers and dispossessed people are mad as fuck and want to fight against the systems which oppress them.

Um, I think the 30 or 40 number is meant to refer to the number of blac bloc anarchists, not the total number of participants in the movement. Unless you're arguing that everybody in the movement agreed with and participated in the bb tactics.

[The Douche]

Making random violence beneficial to the overall movement. Q.E.D.

I don't even know what you said/meant with this.

[Comrade Auldnik]

I don't even know what you said/meant with this.

For all your talk about "college kids" making sweeping judgments about the working class, you didn't really address the point of the article, which is that random acts of petty violence do nothing to advance the cause of improving conditions for the proletariat in any way.

[blake 3:17]

I don't even know what you said/meant with this.


I believe you have access to The Internet. There a site called Wikipedia. And there's entry for this! Wow! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.

[praxis1966]

Can I just say that at least as it pertains to Oakland (and I'll let Mari3L address the situation in Portland even though I suspect it's similar), that even when all the bloc set out to do is nothing but engage in property damage (as on N2) it was far from random? Every building targeted by them was corporate owned and I know this because I was there.

This is what frustrates me so highly about these threads... Most of what's being argued against here (ie wanton hooliganism) hasn't actually happened.

[The Douche]

Um, I think the 30 or 40 number is meant to refer to the number of blac bloc anarchists, not the total number of participants in the movement. Unless you're arguing that everybody in the movement agreed with and participated in the bb tactics.

There were 2000+ in the anti-capitalist march, which was openly promoted as militant and masked. Just watch the videos, you'll see far more than 30 people. Over 100,000 marched on the port, thats the "movement", over 2000 marched explicitly against capital, with the intent to be militant. If there were only 30 people destroying property then why couldn't the other 1000+ people stop them?

You don't see the gaps in your theory, there?

[Comrade Auldnik]

Can I just say that at least as it pertains to Oakland (and I'll let Mari3L address the situation in Portland even though I suspect it's similar), that even when all the bloc set out to do nothing but engage in property damage (as on N2) it was far from random? Every building targeted by them was corporate owned and I know this because I was there.

This is what frustrates me so highly about these threads... Most of what's being argued against here (ie wanton hooliganism) hasn't actually happened.

But how is smashing a corporate window changing anything for the better? What exactly is being done to effectively change the predicament of the working class through these acts?

[The Douche]

For all your talk about "college kids" making sweeping judgments about the working class, you didn't really address the point of the article, which is that random acts of petty violence do nothing to advance the cause of improving conditions for the proletariat in any way.

Who are you arguing against with that line? Nobody has suggested what you're arguing against.

But I will say, that if we can threaten a business, and mean it, when they threaten to fire us, they will have to think twice. Which did actually happen with some of the businesses attacked in Oakland. They claimed they would fire strikers, they were attacked, and the strikers didn't get sacked.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Who are you arguing against with that line? Nobody has suggested what you're arguing against.

But I will say, that if we can threaten a business, and mean it, when they threaten to fire us, they will have to think twice. Which did actually happen with some of the businesses attacked in Oakland. They claimed they would fire strikers, they were attacked, and the strikers didn't get sacked.

In what ways were they attacked?

[The Douche]

In what ways were they attacked?

Windows smashed, property vandalized, business disrupted.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Windows smashed, property vandalized, business disrupted.

You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical that this prevented firings, but I'm not entirely closed against the idea, either. Were these acts done in conjunction with non-violent measures to clearly communicate to the fat-cats exactly what was going on? That is to say, was there an M.L.K. to the bloc's Panther Party, if you excuse my not entirely accurate analogy?

[praxis1966]

But how is smashing a corporate window changing anything for the better? What exactly is being done to effectively change the predicament of the working class through these acts?

I admitted a couple of pages ago that it probably didn't, at least not materially. I think there's an argument to be made for the psychological impact it makes in terms of emboldening others toward more militant action, however.


You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical that this prevented firings, but I'm not entirely closed against the idea, either. Were these acts done in conjunction with non-violent measures to clearly communicate to the fat-cats exactly what was going on? That is to say, was there an M.L.K. to the bloc's Panther Party, if you excuse my not entirely accurate analogy?

Yes. Did you not hear about the November 2nd general strike? That's what he's referring to.

[Comrade Auldnik]

I admitted a couple of pages ago that it probably didn't, at least not materially. I think there's an argument to be made for the psychological impact it makes in terms of emboldening others toward more militant action, however.

I'm quite skeptical. It may embolden others towards similar acts, but I don't think it promotes a tendency towards organized militarism.

[praxis1966]

I'm quite skeptical. It may embolden others towards similar acts, but I don't think it promotes a tendency towards organized militarism.

I never said anything about organized militarism. There's a difference between militancy and militarism you know.

[Comrade Auldnik]

I never said anything about organized militarism. There's a difference between militancy and militarism you know.

Excuse my choice of words. I suppose I had meant militancy.

[praxis1966]

Excuse my choice of words. I suppose I had meant militancy.

If you're skeptical about that as well, I have to doubt your experience at being at actual demonstrations.

[Comrade Auldnik]

If you're skeptical about that as well, I have to doubt your experience at being at actual demonstrations.

Said he, as opposed to, say, just supporting his point with anything substantive.

[praxis1966]

Said he, as opposed to, say, just supporting his point with anything substantive.

You don't think if one guy breaks a window it makes the person behind him more likely to do the same thing?

Again, go back and watch that video link I posted. You'll see a dude using an armchair to shield himself from rubber bullets and shit, pushing it closer to the line of cops. That chair was meant for the community center OO was going to set up...

[Comrade Auldnik]

Again, go back and watch that video link I posted. You'll see a dude using an armchair to shield himself from rubber bullets and shit, pushing it closer to the line of cops. That chair was meant for the community center OO was going to set up...

Thereby creating an organized, militant consciousness among the working class? Awesome.

[Ele'ill]

But how is smashing a corporate window changing anything for the better? What exactly is being done to effectively change the predicament of the working class through these acts?


It elevates the level of militancy. It breaks the spell that our world is unchanging and what we've been given is it. It's a physical attack against something horrible and is the physical equivalent of a banner or chant. It's not the only thing being done of course. If we can't come to terms with some windows being broken now we're not gonna be able to stomach what's coming in the future. If there are undesirable businesses operating in a community and they have their front doors smashed I'm not going to shed a tear over it. I don't even think the cops and media say that it's random acts of vandalism. I remember hearing a couple times from police giving interviews with reporters that the property destruction was planned and had specific targets.

[blake 3:17]

If you're skeptical about that as well, I have to doubt your experience at being at actual demonstrations.

People use the wrong words and then correct themselves. So what?


Windows smashed, property vandalized, business disrupted.

Ever heard of the War of the Flea? The tactics have been added to since then. Maybe we should move this discussion to one on Fanon & violence?

For those of us who reject a teleological Marxism, the pragmatics matter, the means-ends relationship matter. These aren't immortal questions, but ones we need to deal with.

We need a rethinking of the Martin/Malcolm divide -- which was as much regional and demographical as political.

I'm tired of our battles being picked by the dominant class, and then every so often being picked by silly substitutionists.

[praxis1966]

Thereby creating an organized, militant consciousness among the working class? Awesome.

No, I'm saying that the chair was intended for the community center. Inspired by the willingness of the bloc to confront the cops and faced with the reality that he wasn't getting into the building, he used it as a shield in the standoff to help protect other demonstrators. That particular person probably had no intention of doing what he did when he showed up, however. At any rate, you started by asking how these kinds of tactics would advance the conditions of the working class, not create militant class consciousness. I'll readily admit that we failed in advancing material conditions, which would have been achieved had we taken the building. However, I seriously doubt that anyone who was there is anything but even more hardened in their resolve to continue fighting....

But my question to you is, what the fuck have you done lately?

[blake 3:17]

Could this thread be closed? Getting too too long.

[Comrade Auldnik]

But my question to you is, what the fuck have you done lately?

"Well, no, I couldn't actually prove my point, but what have you done, huh?!"

:rolleyes: I have no reason to indulge this nonsense, but I can tell you it's a whole lot more substantive than hurling a rock.

[Ele'ill]

Could this thread be closed? Getting too too long.


but it's just getting good and it's only at #167

[Ele'ill]

but I can tell you it's a whole lot more substantive than hurling a rock.

I'm down for both.

[Comrade Auldnik]

It elevates the level of militancy. It breaks the spell that our world is unchanging and what we've been given is it. It's a physical attack against something horrible and is the physical equivalent of a banner or chant. It's not the only thing being done of course. If we can't come to terms with some windows being broken now we're not gonna be able to stomach what's coming in the future. If there are undesirable businesses operating in a community and they have their front doors smashed I'm not going to shed a tear over it. I don't even think the cops and media say that it's random acts of vandalism. I remember hearing a couple times from police giving interviews with reporters that the property destruction was planned and had specific targets.

See, if praxis wanted to prove his/her (xir?) point, s/h/xe should've said something like this. This makes sense.

[blake 3:17]

But my question to you is, what the fuck have you done lately?

I've never had any contact with the comrade you're referring to. I am in favour of militancy when it is effective.

If our common aim is to overthrow racism, war, imperialism, exploitation and oppression, we're playing a long game.

We are in a world in crisis. Neo-liberalism just keeps going and going, the US-Canadian-UK-Israeli death machine is revving up for a terrible immoral war, general living conditions globally are worsening.

Ad hominem attacks ain't gonna get us closer to socialism.

[human strike]

If you think that individuals who are willing and interested in direct confrontation with the police and private property are just a tiny group of white male teenagers then you've obviously never seen a black bloc in real life.

But the great thing about black bloc is you can't tell who is in it, their gender, their race etc. That's why it has such an equalising effect and why it is not the macho hypermasculine bullshit Hedges accuses it of being. The fact these people assume it is white male teenagers is where the actual prejudice is revealed in this situation. Why do they think that's who it is even though they can't tell? Because they are the ones upholding the gender stereotypes whilst black bloc attacks gender altogether.

Of course, sometimes when you get up close you can probably figure out the gender of the participants, but anyone whose gotten close enough for that should already know better than to say the kinds of thing Hedges does.

[praxis1966]

"Well, no, I couldn't actually prove my point, but what have you done, huh?!"

:rolleyes: I have no reason to indulge this nonsense, but I can tell you it's a whole lot more substantive than hurling a rock.

Actually, I did, but you ignored it. You also ignored Mari3L's arguments. In fact, you've brushed off just about every argument that didn't fit into your apparently Procrustean bed of what a demonstration should look like.

And not for nothing, but I've done workplace actions as a dues paying member of the IWW as well, so your thinly veiled, prolier than thou dig ain't gonna fly here, pal.

[praxis1966]

See, if praxis wanted to prove his/her (xir?) point, s/h/xe should've said something like this. This makes sense.

Hoooollllyyyyy fuck, that's exactly what I was talking about when I made the statement about inspiring more militant action.

[blake 3:17]

But the great thing about black bloc is you can't tell who is in it, their gender, their race etc. That's why it has such an equalising effect and why it is not the macho hypermasculine bullshit Hedges accuses it of being.

Every demonstration I've been at where a Black Bloc has appeared, it has been overwhelmingly White and Male.

The German BBers I knew in the 90s were Anti-Germans.

[Ele'ill]

Hoooollllyyyyy fuck, that's exactly what I was talking about when I made the statement about inspiring more militant action.


You're just not good enough because you're praxis1966.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Actually, I did, but you ignored it. You also ignored Mari3L's arguments. In fact, you've brushed off just about every argument that didn't fit into your apparently Procrustean bed of what a demonstration should look like.

And not for nothing, but I've done workplace actions as a dues paying member of the IWW as well, so your thinly veiled, prolier than thou dig ain't gonna fly here, pal.

Yeah, I've done a lot of Procrustinating, you might say. Except I never once laid out what I thought a demonstration ought to look like. I just supported the unreasonable position that violence should have some long-term benefit. :lol:

[Comrade Auldnik]

Hoooollllyyyyy fuck, that's exactly what I was talking about when I made the statement about inspiring more militant action.

If that's what you'd meant to say, I'll give it to you. It's just that the other comrade made the point so much more intelligently and articulately.

[blake 3:17]

as a dues paying member of the IWW as well, so your thinly veiled, prolier than thou dig ain't gonna fly here, pal.

Gonna play identity politics on the basis of IWW membership?

[Ele'ill]

Every demonstration I've been at where a Black Bloc has appeared, it has been overwhelmingly White and Male.


I think the West Coast of the US is a great example to contrast your experience. It's always a mixed group. My experience on the east coast actually points this direction too.

[Comrade Auldnik]

I think the West Coast of the US is a great example to contrast your experience. It's always a mixed group. My experience on the east coast actually points this direction too.

I'm from the East Coast also. The demonstrations I've been to, despite being in a predominately black region, are, racially speaking, pretty even in representation. As for sex, that seemed to be pretty even too.

[praxis1966]

Yeah, I've done a lot of Procrustinating, you might say. Except I never once laid out what I thought a demonstration ought to look like. I just supported the unreasonable position that violence should have some long-term benefit. :lol:

You're right. My bad. You never have come up with any program of any kind... Never suggested any alternatives. Never made it clear what you would do differently in order to inspire this glorious mass revolt to which you've referred.


You're just not good enough because you're praxis1966.

Evidently.


Gonna play identity politics on the basis of IWW membership?

No, and if you hadn't quoted out of context you wouldn't even be able to ask that question.

[Comrade Auldnik]

You're right. My bad. You never have come up with any program of any kind... Never suggested any alternatives. Never made it clear what you would do differently in order to inspire this glorious mass revolt to which you've referred.

Therefore, rock + window = revolution. Q.E.D. Gotcha.

[praxis1966]

Therefore, rock + window = revolution. Q.E.D. Gotcha.

Likewise, where you're concerned, nothing + nothing = mass uprising. QED. Gotcha. I think I'm done arguing in circles for today. Tootles.

[Ele'ill]

Therefore, rock + window = revolution. Q.E.D. Gotcha.

Dunno if you're joking here or not but I think the point is that those engaging in property destruction are active elsewhere outside of the fuck shit up committees.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Likewise, where you're concerned, nothing + nothing = mass uprising. QED. Gotcha. I think I'm done arguing in circles for today. Tootles.

Way to react, spineless. :lol:

[Comrade Auldnik]

Dunno if you're joking here or not but I think the point is that those engaging in property destruction are active elsewhere outside of the fuck shit up committees.

Now, see, if Comrade ****-Canoe could just say that or something of similar intelligence, he wouldn't be darting off with his tail between his legs.

[The Douche]

Now, see, if Comrade ****-Canoe could just say that or something of similar intelligence, he wouldn't be darting off with his tail between his legs.

Personal insults aren't cool. I'm not sure what the fuck "****-canoe" means, but it sounds sexist.

Consider this a verbal warning, Auldnik.

[Ele'ill]

Now, see, if Comrade ****-Canoe could just say that or something of similar intelligence, he wouldn't be darting off with his tail between his legs.

He had said this before me actually. Sometimes reading comprehension is more important than impotent babble.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Personal insults aren't cool. I'm not sure what the fuck "****-canoe" means, but it sounds sexist.

Consider this a verbal warning, Auldnik.

It's like a twelve-foot-long something-or-other you can paddle up and down a river in. It isn't intended to be sexist. I suppose a hollowed-out what-not or a big ol' what's-it-called works just as well and would be less sexist.

[Comrade Auldnik]

He had said this before me actually. Sometimes reading comprehension is more important than impotent babble.

For all the "reading comprehension" in the world, that doesn't make what he said coherent. Way to pour fuel on the flames, though. Good work.

[Ele'ill]

It's like a twelve-foot-long something-or-other you can paddle up and down a river in. It isn't intended to be sexist. I suppose a hollowed-out what-not or a big ol' what's-it-called works just as well and be less sexist.

No the word **** is definitely sexist. Instead of using it you could instead not use it. Instead of being an asshole you could not be an asshole.

[blake 3:17]

I'm from the East Coast also. The demonstrations I've been to, despite being in a predominately black region, are, racially speaking, pretty even in representation. As for sex, that seemed to be pretty even too.

Ok -- cool I guess. Everything I've seen in Toronto was has been very White and 99% Male.

My main experiences were during the G20 here, various protests round 2003-07, Chicago Y2K and in the anti-fascist scene in the 90s. Except for the latter, they were overwhelmingly Male.

[Ele'ill]

Ok -- cool I guess. Everything I've seen in Toronto was has been very White and 99% Male.

My main experiences were during the G20 here, various protests round 2003-07, Chicago Y2K and in the anti-fascist scene in the 90s. Except for the latter, they were overwhelmingly Male.

but the bloc in Toronto during the summit had quite a mix.

[The Douche]

It's like a twelve-foot-long something-or-other you can paddle up and down a river in. It isn't intended to be sexist. I suppose a hollowed-out what-not or a big ol' what's-it-called works just as well and would be less sexist.

And what does **** have to do with a canoe?

[Comrade Auldnik]

No the word **** is definitely sexist. Instead of using it you could instead not use it. Instead of being an asshole you could not be an asshole.

Same to you, fuckhead.

[Comrade Auldnik]

And what does **** have to do with a canoe?

I think the point was to take two unrelated things and make them into one weird thing. Human organs the size of a canoe carry with them an absurdist element, you see.

[Ele'ill]

Same to you, fuckhead.

What?

[The Douche]

Same to you, fuckhead.

Enjoy your flaming infraction.

I might owe you one for sexism as well.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Enjoy your flaming infraction.

I might owe you one for sexism as well.

So calling me an asshole was fair game, but fuckhead? Oh no, we can't have that. :rolleyes:

[blake 3:17]

Comrade Auldnik, I was agreeing with you goofball. Then you go and use '****' Fuck off idiot.

[Comrade Auldnik]

What?

What happened to "reading comprehension," comrade?

[Comrade Auldnik]

Comrade Auldnik, I was agreeing with you goofball. Then you go and use '****' Fuck off idiot.

I wasn't even talking to you, genius.

[Ele'ill]

So calling me an asshole was fair game, but fuckhead? Oh no, we can't have that. :rolleyes:

Your trolling really flopped here didn't it?

[Comrade Auldnik]

Your trolling really flopped here didn't it?

I guess when you've been called out on your own bullshit, there's really nothing left to do but shout "TROLL!"

[The Douche]

I also gave you an infraction for your prejudiced language.


I'm pretty fucking tolerant of "personal insults" and I let that shit fly when it is included in a legitimate post containing points of argument. But I'm not gonna let shit slide when you're posting nothing but insults, and I won't let sexist language fly either.

[Ele'ill]

I guess when you've been called out on your own bullshit, there's really nothing left to do but shout "TROLL!"

No I'm just saying you're not really good at it. You acted like an asshole and then in your own defense used the 'no u r' defense. I mean who the fuck does that? Anyways let's get back on topic and discuss this thread cause it's kind of a current event type of discussion.

[Comrade Auldnik]

you're posting nothing but insults

Well, before this conversation got seriously derailed, this wasn't true at all. I was the first insulted and it seems like I'm being singled out for something quite a few more people than me were involved in.

I apologize for using a sexist word. I did not mean to use something sexist.

[Comrade Auldnik]

I mean who the fuck does that?

Quick question before we get back on topic: where the hell does your self-awareness go when you hit the enter key?

[Ele'ill]

Ok moving on back into relevance. Feel free to remove my off topic posts from this thread btw cmoney

[Comrade Auldnik]

Ok moving on back into relevance. Feel free to remove my off topic posts from this thread btw cmoney

Actually, if you're going to do that, I'd like to offer up my own off-topic comments to be removed as well.

[The Douche]

I'm not removing any posts, cause I'm lazy, but I bet somebody else will.

[Comrade Auldnik]

In any case, I'm of the opinion that violence is not, at this time, being used appropriately by the "blocs" discussed in the article mentioned in the original post.

[The Douche]

In any case, I'm of the opinion that violence is not, at this time, being used appropriately by the "blocs" discussed in the article mentioned in the original post.

Your opinion ignores the reality of social upheaval. Whenever there is social unrest, there is violence, especially directed towards property and police. Its not always a planned tactic, why can't you accept that people just express their rage?

[Comrade Auldnik]

Your opinion ignores the reality of social upheaval. Whenever there is social unrest, there is violence, especially directed towards property and police. Its not always a planned tactic, why can't you accept that people just express their rage?

People do a lot of things to express themselves that aren't in their best interests. This is something we've only just recently had an issue with, isn't it, Chris? I can accept that people have moments in which they do not consider the longer-term effects of what they're doing, but that doesn't mean they ought to be endorsed or encouraged.

[The Douche]

People do a lot of things to express themselves that aren't in their best interests. This is something we've only just recently had an issue with, isn't it, Chris? I can accept that people have moments in which they do not consider the longer-term effects of what they're doing, but that doesn't mean they ought to be endorsed or encouraged.

You think that property destruction has a negative effect on the movement. I don't. I don't know if I think it is necessarily always positive in all aspects, but I think it can be at times.

[Comrade Auldnik]

You think that property destruction has a negative effect on the movement. I don't. I don't know if I think it is necessarily always positive in all aspects, but I think it can be at times.

I didn't say that I think property destruction in and of itself has a negative effect on the movement. Just like you don't think it's positive all the time, I don't think it's negative all the time.

[The Douche]

I don't think smashing business which threatened to fire strikers or smashing banks was a tactical mistake in Oakland.

[Comrade Auldnik]

I don't think smashing business which threatened to fire strikers or smashing banks was a tactical mistake in Oakland.

I'm just not convinced that this had the positive impact someone insisted that it did, earlier. But if I can be shown that it did, then this would certainly change my opinion...

[The Douche]

I'm just not convinced that this had the positive impact someone insisted that it did, earlier. But if I can be shown that it did, then this would certainly change my opinion...

I'm not sure who said that there was a specific positive impact?

[Comrade Auldnik]

I'm not sure who said that there was a specific positive impact?

I don't remember either.

[cb9's_unity]

No, the goal is to radicalize and agitate. The goal is to be active in making change, no matter how small and trivial for no other reason than it's the only option available.
No one gives a fuck about sympathy, least of all the 'public.' The 'public' sat by idly while Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Pakistan were bombed into oblivion. Children murdered, thrown on the side of the road. Whole cities filled with holes. The 'public' sits by while their corporations rape and pillage foreign countries in their name.

All I can tell from this is that you don't seem to actually support or care about democracy. For you to radicalize and agitate is more important than the public actually believing in socialism (which, to believe in, you have to be sympathetic towards).

So you can mainly focus your support towards the abstract Gods of radicalization and agitation, I'll try to focus on the working class accepting socialism as a legitimate form of political thought.


The point here is that 'the public' is a meaningless fucking term. You cannot 'get public sympathy'. So let's get over the notion that we need to 'appeal' to 'the public.'

Ironically, this could be the most meaningless paragraphs I have ever read. But it tells me a lot about your latent philosophical idealism.

'The public' (a term that I've been loosely exchanging with 'the working class') is the real people who are the actual force that is going to bring about revolution. They have to be sympathetic to socialism for a revolution to happen, unless you just want to take over with a coup or something.

All I can tell is that you see the ideals of agitation and radicalization as being for important than getting the real public to become agitated and radicalized. You don't just worship those ideals and to convert the masses. You have to meet them where they are now, and then build a bridge for them to walk over. And by that I don't mean reformism or liberalism or anything like that. We don't have to compromise any of our ideals or adopt the ideals of bourgeois parties, but we don't necessarily have to use methods that are going to give people the wrong idea about us.


Don't be upset when the "first autonomous political movement" involves people who think differently than you. Seriously.

They aren't "destroying a unique vehicle for expression." For many people, breaking shit is a vehicle for expression. You are applying your narrow-ass view of what a 'vehicle' can be to a broad spectrum of people who see things differently.

Again, none of this makes in sense at all. I mean, it sounds nice. I'll give you that. But there is absolutely no content in this critique.

My problem isn't just that people are thinking differently than me. For you to make it about that is straight up childish because it lowers the level of discussion and diverts it away from a discussion of the value of the arguments people are making. My problem is the logic of their thought, not that its just different than mine.

Also, are you saying that all vehicles for expression are completely equal and without distinction? Simply that someone has a vehicle for expression doesn't mean it is a good one. A bourgeois newspaper is a means for expression as well. Should that be supported uncritically simply because it fits into the category of vehicle of expression? It just doesn't make any sense that you would want to to support the idea of a vehicle of expression so much as to not criticize any actual vehicles of expression.


we're not trying to win a popularity contest. in the offering of alternatives and opening of ruptures in the social peace we are doing what we need to do.

Yes, if you are trying to create a democratic movement, it is exactly a popularity contest. It very literally is a contest to make the idea of socialism more popular than the idea of capitalism. I seriously have no idea how to implement socialism without it becoming popular. Unless, of course, you are arguing for some sort of authoritarian party.

Capitalism does enough by itself to create ruptures in the social peace, that's part of the reason why we oppose it. We have to offer the alternative to greater social peace, and only disrupt it ourselves when it is our very last option. Right now there is no reason to make ourselves look like the ones who are fucking up social peace, we have too great an opportunity to show that it is the capitalists who the ones mainly doing it. The more we fuck shit up the less we can draw the distinction between us being for peace in general and capitalism depending on violence to continue its existence.


the institutional left is desperately trying to co-opt occupy and has been since day one. people like hedges are very much part of this wing. they want it to be peaceful and play nice with those in power- thats why he talks about 'appealing to those with a conscience'- and its 'some people' maintaining a hostile posture that is keeping it 'autonomous.' plenty of other occupy sites have been removed or channeled into politics as usual.

I'm not Hedges and I've already criticized him in this thread. I'm not calling for politics as usual.


if that is all it takes to 'destroy' it, it wasn't worth shit to begin with.

Regular people becoming more aware about the system that is oppressing them, and becoming more passionate about finding a way to oppose it, is always worth something.

[praxis1966]

I don't remember either.

That's because nobody did. The reason I exited the debate is it became clear that you were arguing just to argue, not because you had a real position. Therefore, exiting the discussion wasn't spineless, it was sensible...

[9]

man this is such a boring discussion, its actually excruciating to try and read it.

[blake 3:17]

But I gotta ask, what the hell is wrong with that anarchistic snake march in front of the Art Institute (in New York I think?)

If their chant was "Black Cop White Cop They're all the same/ Police Brutality is the name of the game", well, truer words were rarely spoke.

It was in Chicago. All of the police were Black -- the teenagers yelling were White.

I was trying to keep pace with the Free Mumia and Justice For Janitors contingents.

If you want to try it, go right ahead.

Edited to add:
That's because nobody did. The reason I exited the debate is it became clear that you were arguing just to argue, not because you had a real position. Therefore, exiting the discussion wasn't spineless, it was sensible... The C word usually just ends the conversation.

[Martin Blank]

I am amazed at the level of property fetishism being dressed up in "r-r-r-revolutionary" rhetoric here. Just. Amazed.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I am amazed at the level of property fetishism being dressed up in "r-r-r-revolutionary" rhetoric here. Just. Amazed.

To me, it's only understandable in much of the Third World, if Black Bloc tactics are employed there, too.

[the last donut of the night]

gonna chime in here quickly. probably wrong but whatever. anyways: i think some people on the thread should explain what exactly does getting "public appeal to socialism" means. will we all wake up one day and talk about how everyone wants socialism like it's some kind of brand-new dishwasher? like "the public", "public appeal" is a really meaningless term because it ignores class. furthermore, if you look at it historically, struggles in the working class don't start deepening because the class suddenly wakes up and decides it wants socialism. that's a pretty idealistic and immature vision of history; struggles begin to deepen on their own around specific events and issues that later begin to form wider demands. occupy oakland didn't start to deepen when every worker in the city woke up and said, "wow, i think socialism would be nice, you know?" it started more along the lines of "i'm fucking fed up of these rents, shitty public transportation" etc. point is, we're not either messias sent by karl marx to save the "public" or an ad agency, but people taking part in struggle that can lead to emancipation. some member here once said that a big failure of modern enlightenment thought is the vision that history works in quasi-apocalyptic events, where social change comes to an apex "the event" occasion and the next day everything is suddenly changed anew. therefore, if everyone's gonna wait and be nice and leaflet and get their party's membership growing so that "the public" decides it's something they'd go for, then everyone is handing over capitalism to a new generation of people.

[the last donut of the night]

To me, it's only understandable in much of the Third World, if Black Bloc tactics are employed there, too.

and why, may i ask? the same social relations that apply there apply in the "first world".

[Comrade Auldnik]

That's because nobody did. The reason I exited the debate is it became clear that you were arguing just to argue, not because you had a real position. Therefore, exiting the discussion wasn't spineless, it was sensible...

Well, if you can't leave it alone ...

[Comrade Auldnik]

The C word usually just ends the conversation.

I recall the conversation extending to "Fuck off, idiot." Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Decolonize The Left]

You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical that this prevented firings, but I'm not entirely closed against the idea, either. Were these acts done in conjunction with non-violent measures to clearly communicate to the fat-cats exactly what was going on? That is to say, was there an M.L.K. to the bloc's Panther Party, if you excuse my not entirely accurate analogy?

Dude. Different people wanna do different things. Some people wanna sit in a circle and hum in unison to vibe with the cosmos. Others wanna march down a street with banners and signs. Others wanna sit on the side of the street and watch. Others wanna sit at home and watch tv. Others wanna smash shit.

Deal with it.

It doesn't have to do with any one thing or another, what it has to do with is the fact that people need to do something. Sometimes that's breaking shit.

- August

[Comrade Auldnik]

Dude. Different people wanna do different things. Some people wanna sit in a circle and hum in unison to vibe with the cosmos. Others wanna march down a street with banners and signs. Others wanna sit on the side of the street and watch. Others wanna sit at home and watch tv. Others wanna smash shit.

Deal with it.

It doesn't have to do with any one thing or another, what it has to do with is the fact that people need to do something. Sometimes that's breaking shit.

- August

I disagree that this is a good thing. Is there no way to try to make "breaking shit" into something a little more substantial? Is there no way to use this impetus towards more effective ends? Sometimes people just really need to fuck, too, but acknowledging that doesn't, by itself, prevent the spreading of disease or pregnancies for which the parents are not prepared. Acknowledging the need leads to other developments, such as the development of birth control and family planning, which I'm sure you'd agree is much better than just arbitrary insertion.

[Decolonize The Left]

I disagree that this is a good thing. Is there no way to try to make "breaking shit" into something a little more substantial? Is there no way to use this impetus towards more effective ends? Sometimes people just really need to fuck, too, but acknowledging that doesn't, by itself, prevent the spreading of disease or pregnancies for which the parents are not prepared. Acknowledging the need leads to other developments, such as the development of birth control and family planning, which I'm sure you'd agree is much better than just arbitrary insertion.

The point here is that everything you just posted amounts to nothing more than "I disagree with it as a tactic." That's your opinion. No one is stopping you from having it, or doing what you want do during a march. So stop telling other people what to do.

- August

[Comrade Auldnik]

The point here is that everything you just posted amounts to nothing more than "I disagree with it as a tactic." That's your opinion. No one is stopping you from having it, or doing what you want do during a march. So stop telling other people what to do.

- August

Forgive me. I was under the impression that this was the place to express opinions about this topic. I'll make sure to tell all the members of the Black Blocs around the country that they can stop hanging on my every word.

[Decolonize The Left]

Alright, I'll bite:


All I can tell from this is that you don't seem to actually support or care about democracy. For you to radicalize and agitate is more important than the public actually believing in socialism (which, to believe in, you have to be sympathetic towards).

So you can mainly focus your support towards the abstract Gods of radicalization and agitation, I'll try to focus on the working class accepting socialism as a legitimate form of political thought.

Getting the working class to accept socialism as a legitimate form of political thought = Radicalizing and agitating

Well done there...



'The public' (a term that I've been loosely exchanging with 'the working class') is the real people who are the actual force that is going to bring about revolution. They have to be sympathetic to socialism for a revolution to happen, unless you just want to take over with a coup or something.

"The public" is a meaningless term and you just proved it - your definition:

the actual force that is going to bring about revolution.What you are actually referring to is the working class. That's a meaningful term with actual grounds in physical reality. "The public" just means people as it is linguistically opposed to the "private."

Way to shoot yourself in the foot, especially after your ridiculous "latent philosophical idealism" comment. You go from that to claiming that the public is a "force."


All I can tell is that you see the ideals of agitation and radicalization as being for important than getting the real public to become agitated and radicalized. You don't just worship those ideals and to convert the masses. You have to meet them where they are now, and then build a bridge for them to walk over. And by that I don't mean reformism or liberalism or anything like that. We don't have to compromise any of our ideals or adopt the ideals of bourgeois parties, but we don't necessarily have to use methods that are going to give people the wrong idea about us.

Actually, all you can see is that you have no fucking idea what I'm talking about and you totally misinterpreted my post and position.

Furthermore, since you have such absurd and liberal notions as "building a bridge for them to walk over" (as if the working class was a bunch of mind-dead sheep), it's quite clear that you would want to save them, the public, with your vast knowledge and intelligence.

Get the fuck off it. And while you're at it, get your terms straight.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Forgive me. I was under the impression that this was the place to express opinions about this topic. I'll make sure to tell all the members of the Black Blocs around the country that they can stop hanging on my every word.

I'll feel free to report you for trolling. I'm surprised you've made it this far.

- August

[Comrade Auldnik]

I'll feel free to report you for trolling. I'm surprised you've made it this far.

- August

"I have an opinion different from yours."

"STOP TROLLING AND TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TO DO!!"

Yeah, good luck with that.

[Decolonize The Left]

"I have an opinion different from yours."

"STOP TROLLING AND TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TO DO!!"

Yeah, good luck with that.

Hmm... not clear on the definitions. I'll take one second and clarify for you.

Several individuals in this thread have expressed cogent and thoughtful arguments for various positions. You have effectively disregarded everything they said with one-line posts and continued on your way. This is considered trolling.

Furthermore, I stated that you have a disagreement, one which is fine and acceptable, but you need to accept that this is a disagreement instead of dismissing the other side. You dismissed the other side. This is considered trolling.

I have been a local mod, global mod, and admin on this forum. Generally speaking, I am very nice and agreeable, and can be approached for most things and will help if I can. Your conduct in this thread would have earned you several infractions had I been able to issue them. Instead, I'll just report you.

Now you know.

- August

[Comrade Auldnik]

Several individuals in this thread have expressed cogent and thoughtful arguments for various positions. You have effectively disregarded everything they said with one-line posts and continued on your way. This is considered trolling.

That would be considered trolling, yes, but that is hardly what I've done. I've expressed my opinion and have made arguments for it. You have decided to dismiss this arguments out of hand and, at this point, have chosen to simply ignore their existence.


Furthermore, I stated that you have a disagreement, one which is fine and acceptable...

Then why aren't you treating it like it's "fine and acceptable"? You told me to "stop telling people what to do" after I expressed my opinion.


... but you need to accept that this is a disagreement instead of dismissing the other side. You dismissed the other side. This is considered trolling.

I haven't dismissed the other side. I have made arguments that run counter to the other side's opinions.


I have been a local mod, global mod, and admin on this forum. Generally speaking, I am very nice and agreeable, and can be approached for most things and will help if I can. Your conduct in this thread would have earned you several infractions had I been able to issue them. Instead, I'll just report you.

Now you know.

- August

If that'll make you feel better, go ahead and do it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

and why, may i ask? the same social relations that apply there apply in the "first world".

Because in much of the Third World, the urban and rural petit-bourgeoisie outnumber the proletariat. It makes no sense smashing windows of potentially anti-bourgeois shopkeepers there.

[The Douche]

Thread closed, to much stupid going on, not enough healthy debate.