Black Blocing

[Comrade B]

So, I am kind of undecided on how I feel about black blocers. On the one hand, they can make the protesters look more aggressive than the majority of the protest would like, and there is always some idiot that smashes up random cars (likely your fellow protesters... since they probably parked near the protest). The media then gets all over them and criticizes them for being a bunch of rowdy clueless idiots, but at the same time, who gives a fuck what the media says, they talk shit about us no matter what we do (if you aren't smashing shit, you are just a bunch of smelly college (whether you are or not) kids going through a rebellious faze. Also, Black blocers attacks are much more targeted usually than people make them seem, in Seattle, the attacks were primarily done on anti-union chain stores and banks, who don't contribute shit to society and are more of a leach than anything else. The anger also shows how pissed off people are and can get a message across. It is also undeniable that tactics like this work to build fervor in movements.

I also sort of feel like those who wouldn't join us anyway are the ones who complain the most.

I was wondering if anyone had any other perspectives on the matter.

And please don't just turn this post into a stupid flame war...

[Ele'ill]

So, I am kind of undecided on how I feel about black blocers. On the one hand, they can make the protesters look more aggressive than the majority of the protest would like, and there is always some idiot that smashes up random cars (likely your fellow protesters... since they probably parked near the protest).

That car topic is an internal discussion on tactics though cause the people complaining the most about it happening are the people who are opposed to absolutely anything getting fucked up at all. The other half of the people citing it are simply saying it may not have been tactically advantageous to do it or just confused why object A got hit but not object B.




The media then gets all over them and criticizes them for being a bunch of rowdy clueless idiots,


but at the same time, who gives a fuck what the media says, they talk shit about us no matter what we do (if you aren't smashing shit, you are just a bunch of smelly college (whether you are or not) kids going through a rebellious faze.

This. The media are cops.


Also, Black blocers attacks are much more targeted usually than people make them seem, in Seattle, the attacks were primarily done on anti-union chain stores and banks, who don't contribute shit to society and are more of a leach than anything else. The anger also shows how pissed off people are and can get a message across. It is also undeniable that tactics like this work to build fervor in movements.

Yup. Militant action like this inspires people, gives people courage, and breaks the spell.

[Art Vandelay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oesjegD1-Vg

1st of 3 videos which explains my opinions on the black bloc better than I could.

[Robespierres Neck]

Smashing cars and windows... yeah, that'll win over the working-class, for sure...
These kids are what ruins the left and gives the media the opportunity to exploit us. It can be viewed in a symbolic sense, but that's all it really is. There's nothing progressive about it.

Not all black blocers do that -- I'm just making a statement.

[Art Vandelay]

Smashing cars and windows... yeah, that'll win over the working-class, for sure...
These kids are what ruins the left and gives the media the opportunity to exploit us. It can be viewed in a symbolic sense, but that's all it really is. There's nothing progressive about it.

Not all black blocers do that -- I'm just making a statement.

Your just making a sweeping generalization.

[bcbm]

Smashing cars and windows... yeah, that'll win over the working-class, for sure...

who says they are trying to win them over? and it seems to be more successful than trying to bore them to death as most pro-revolutionaries do.


These kids are what ruins the left and gives the media the opportunity to exploit us.

lol sure the left was in great shape before the black bloccame

[Tim Finnegan]

These kids are what ruins the left...
No, I'm pretty sure you managed that all by your special little self.

[NewLeft]

I refuse to condemn the black bloc tactic.

[Robespierres Neck]

Your just making a sweeping generalization.

No, I'm not. Hense my last comment.


who says they are trying to win them over? and it seems to be more successful than trying to bore them to death as most pro-revolutionaries do.

I think educating the working-class about forming a political class-conscious is much more productive than spray painting and breaking windows. Just my opinion. Like I said, it's merely an act of symbolism. Marxism, anarchism, ect. is supposed to be a ideology for the working-class, correct?


No, I'm pretty sure you managed that all by your special little self.

Hah, cute.

[bcbm]

I think educating the working-class about forming a political class-conscious is much more productive than spray painting and breaking windows.

both seem equally effective from here.


Like I said, it's merely an act of symbolism. Marxism, anarchism, ect. is supposed to be a ideology for the working-class, correct?

no, more for intellectual hacks

[Ele'ill]

I think educating the working-class about forming a political class-conscious is much more productive than spray painting and breaking windows.

This is kind of a non-issue because the reason people are in the street and the reason that militant actions are occurring is because of the education you are talking about. But once that education occurs you are attempting to package up and control the tactics which isn't feasible and is kinda of really offensive. I'd rather have people act on their own given their surroundings and their situation than try to fill some linear cookie cut role.



Just my opinion. Like I said, it's merely an act of symbolism. Marxism, anarchism, ect. is supposed to be a ideology for the working-class, correct?

You are familiar with militant work place actions right?

[No_Leaders]

Nothing wrong with their tactics. I don't agree with smashing up someone's car unless it were a piggie's but the banks, corporate shops, nothing wrong there.

[Fawkes]

Smashing cars and windows... yeah, that'll win over the working-class, for sure...

Maybe, maybe not, but at the very least the attention from it gives us a platform from which we can "win over" the rest of the working-class.



gives the media the opportunity to exploit us.
Yeah, cause they were sorely missing that before black blocs came around:rolleyes:


It can be viewed in a symbolic sense, but that's all it really is.
And a practical sense:
- It raises attention to us
- It galvanizes more people toward direct action
- It symbolically and materially destroys the illusion of the state and private property as untouchable
- When done on a large scale, it can be a severe financial setback for the state, putting them on the defensive (for once)


I think educating the working-class about forming a political class-conscious is much more productive than spray painting and breaking windows.
1. Like Mari3l said, these actions obviously occurred after that "education"
2. How do you suggest we garner the attention necessary to actually educate other workers without lashing out at the same state we all hate?


Like I said, it's merely an act of symbolism.
And like I said, no, it isn't.


Marxism, anarchism, ect. is supposed to be a ideology for the working-class, correct?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was housing projects that got smashed on Tuesday :rolleyes:


I definitely think black blocs can be used for things even more effective than just smashing windows and cars (maybe loot a grocery store, throw as much as you can into a truck, and ditch it in the projects; form a burning roadblock at the entrance to a precinct parking lot; chain the gates open to subway stations and use your numbers to distract the cops so people can ride for free), but I really don't think any workers are crying over Niketown getting their windows smashed.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

May Day totally changed my mind on black bloc tactics. Before I was pretty critical of it until I actually went to a protest that actually had a black bloc. I didn't even destroy any windows or spray paint anything but just standing two feet away from someone as they spray painted a bank and faced no consequences gave such a liberating feeling. Kind of like when people were pulling out blunts and smoking right in front of the police lines, just being there made me feel great. And I literally had people coming up to me and thanking me for "protecting them" because I was wearing all black so they assumed I was part of it all which kind of made me rethink what I thought, which was that everybody who wasn't black bloc hated the black bloc.

And let's be honest, if nothing happened in Oakland, SF, Seattle, etc, they would have never been mentioned in the news anyways. There may have been a mention like "Today protesters in downtown Oakland gathered to protest such and such thing, now to the weather".

But I like how darforthewin just makes a huge blanket statement then just totally negates it. It's like how we have the freedom of speech, but only in this or that location in this or that circumstance, if we pay this or that amount of money.

[coda]

I support black bloc tactics against state property destruction, corporate looting, occupying, sabotage,-- basically anything where innocent people don't become victims.

The black bloc, from my own experience is made up mostly of anarchists who would fall into the Insurrectional current, and who may not even know they are or even identify as that.. but they are! --- as well as some rebelling uncommitted teens blowing off steam and the rare pissed-off Marxist of whatever stripe.

Myself, Having heavily engaged in black bloc during the Iraq war --- I Totally-- totally, now almost vehemently,, take the stand that the Bloc should challenge and engage against police and property APART from the peaceful protest demonstrations, as they are completely separate in theoretical opposition tactics, and resistance. I respect the non-insurrectionists enough that they shouldn't be used as a shields after the bloc falls back into the crowd--- (that is now or about to be tear gassed).. or instigating a coercion where they need to defend themselves against police batons. It's easy to see that most average demonstrators don't come prepared with masks and lemon juice or any kind of defensive techniques.. So, that's my current stand as a black bloc activist.

With that said.. I think that insurrection is the only thing that matters in revolutionary struggles.

[coda]

Duh!.. clarification--- insurrection.. including organizing amongst the working class any direct action including lock-outs and strikes.. All is insurrection...

[The Hong Se Sun]

I would agree that I would never condemn the black bloc tactic because comrades and brothers and sisters do not condemn direct action. Behind closed doors I'd say that smashing a random persons car is bullshit. If it is a rolls royce or some shit then fine but just a random car no.

I say turn the world upside down and smash the capitalist system. if some anarcho's and other left currents want to enact that by smashing banks and other building then I support that.

Something that revolutionaries must acknowledge is that people don't riot and smash shit for no reason. It comes from somewhere and that hatred is real and should be encouraged. Education can only take us so far "the school and the media is capitalist" means that capitalism is taught to the masses which means we must have these direct actions to show that there is a population of people who oppose capitalism. I call it having guts to step beyond theory and actually attack capitalism on the front lines. Peaceful protest are boring and a waste of time and get no coverage just my thoughts

[Os Cangaceiros]

I support most of what the black bloc does. Some of the stuff is dumb, like vandalizing random cars and then excusing it because cars cause pollution (LOL). But most of what they do either elicites support (when a particularly stimulating bit of riot porn results from their actions) or total apathy from me.

[WanderingCactus]

I don't see myself ever participating in that sort of thing, but I still appreciate black bloc from a distance. Better than the infinite evangelizing of other leftists anyhow.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I don't condemn direct action, but like any tactic there are times where it's unwarranted and counter-productive.

[Le Socialiste]

Propaganda of the deed doesn't rally the working-class to its own self-emancipation, active struggle incorporating and mobilizing the average laborer against the tools and institutions of his or her exploitation does. While I have no moral objection to smashing shit, and wouldn't dare stop someone who was, I believe it to be fundamentally flawed as far as tactics go. While it is clear that the media will downplay anything that is remotely significant as far as workers' struggles go, most Americans (I'm being specific here, because I don't know how applicable this will be outside the U.S.) remain wedded to the illusory fairytale otherwise known as private property. Never mind the reality surrounding the matter, people still react negatively to property damage and often disown any movement associated with it.


I don't condemn direct action, but like any tactic there are times where it's unwarranted and counter-productive.

Also this.

[Fawkes]

Myself, Having heavily engaged in black bloc during the Iraq war --- I Totally-- totally, now almost vehemently,, take the stand that the Bloc should challenge and engage against police and property APART from the peaceful protest demonstrations, as they are completely separate in theoretical opposition tactics, and resistance. I respect the non-insurrectionists enough that they shouldn't be used as a shields after the bloc falls back into the crowd--- (that is now or about to be tear gassed).. or instigating a coercion where they need to defend themselves against police batons. It's easy to see that most average demonstrators don't come prepared with masks and lemon juice or any kind of defensive techniques.. So, that's my current stand as a black bloc activist.
This.

Though I think heavily armored groups of people can be effectively used to defend peaceful demonstrators from police (like the WOMBLES, Tute Bianche, and other groups (http://brasil.indymedia.org/images/2001/07/204416.jpg)), black blocs typically rely on high mobility, which lends them more to aggressive actions as opposed to purely defensive ones.



that being said, really any action against the state qualifies as defensive, but you know what I mean ;)

[marl]

I do not agree with "agressive" black bloc tactics, but I won't condemn them either. Black blocs are useful for concealing your identity, showing solidarity, protecting marchers (as seen at F29 Portland) and de-arresting comrades, so the good outweighs the bad.

If I'm going to march, it'd either be with medics or behind a bloc.

[blake 3:17]

I`ve never been part of a militant demonstration where the presence of a Black Bloc did any good. & as I have said on other related threads -- if you`re going to do some crazy stuff, why wear a uniform?

[marl]

Well, as I said, at Portland on February 29th the black blocs presence prevented harassment and arrests without having to make total destroy.

[Fawkes]

I`ve never been part of a militant demonstration where the presence of a Black Bloc did any good. & as I have said on other related threads -- if you`re going to do some crazy stuff, why wear a uniform?

For the protection of yourself and others from criminal charges.

I think that perhaps it's an overused tactic, but nonetheless, a good one for many situations.

While it could be viewed as a uniform, it could also be viewed as an anonymizer(?), i.e. those people courageously lashing out at the state could be anyone, which has the potential to be very empowering. I think this quote by Naomi Klein describing Subcomandante Marcos's mask underscores what I mean:

"Marcos, the quintessential anti-leader, insists that his black mask is a mirror, so that ‘Marcos is gay in San Francisco, black in South Africa, an Asian in Europe, a Chicano in San Ysidro, an anarchist in Spain, a Palestinian in Israel, a Mayan Indian in the streets of San Cristobal, a Jew in Germany, a Gypsy in Poland, a Mohawk in Quebec, a pacifist in Bosnia, a single woman on the Metro at 10 p.m., a peasant without land, a gang member in the slums, an unemployed worker, an unhappy student and, of course, a Zapatista in the mountains’. In other words, he is simply us: we are the leader we’ve been looking for."



There definitely is a lot of symbolic merit in punching a cop in the face while wearing your everyday clothes, but the threat of the legal system largely outweighs that as a viable option.

[Ele'ill]

I`ve never been part of a militant demonstration where the presence of a Black Bloc did any good.

At these demonstrations you've been to was anybody else other than those bloc'd up confronting the state in a militant manner?

[coda]

<< Propaganda of the deed doesn't rally the working-class to its own self-emancipation, active struggle incorporating and mobilizing the average laborer against the tools and institutions of his or her exploitation does. >>

Yes, indeed, that still applys today.. but only factors in a portion of society that that needs emancipation. Since the unskilled Manufacturing Industries labor is done for the most part entirely off-shore.. US labor is now mostly based on unskilled private service industry and skilled “white collar” industry-- with a huge rate of unemployment (an Unemployed Class--that is not ‘Lumpen Prole‘) of both skilled and unskilled workers, (with a million college grads every years who are over- skilled and unemployed)… All who are equally exploited by the State as conditions as the employed worker is from the Boss and working conditions. Self-emancipation today crosses all classes of people who are not property owners. Propaganda of the deed or the lesser black bloc tactics, however flawed,, speaks loudly of the struggle and discontent of poverty, unemployment and daily work and living conditions.

[Comrade B]

A benefit I recently noticed of the black bloc which I hadn't considered too much before is its publicity. While the press will try to make it look bad, I have had several people who have previously shown little interest in Marxism or anything radical kick up conversations with me about the protest. One of the people who actually turned out to look at it most positively was actually a girl who had gotten off from work because the black bloc was near her work. Whether or not breaking the store fronts makes a huge impact on the bank, it has gotten peoples' interest at a time where the liberals and the radicals have found themselves to have common enemies (even though the liberals continue to support politicians on the side of our enemies)

[Comrade Jandar]

In the right context propaganda of the deed can serve to sharpen the antagonisms of class society. Beyond that notion, the Black Bloc has been known to defend non-violent protesters and include some of the only people trained and prepared to administer first-aid during demonstrations.

Here's an especially enlightening quote from "The Black Bloc Papers."

"Furthermore, by not limiting itself to Liberal dogmatic tactics, it further reaches into the hearts of the yet included poor and working class, who rarely could dig the horseshit of respectable protest and Pacifism."

[bricolage]

There definitely is a lot of symbolic merit in punching a cop in the face while wearing your everyday clothes, but the threat of the legal system largely outweighs that as a viable option.
This only really applies when you have massive black blocs, hundreds or thousands big, otherwise you are still just as noticeable (especially when individuals customise their stuff) and at risk of surveillance. I've also seen examples where being in black bloc actually increased your chance of being nabbed, for example when the bloc was a tiny group and very noticeable amongst the wider demonstration. Another time when the police stood around grabbing everyone who turned up in a black hoodie. I largely agree with this quote,

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

[Ele'ill]

This only really applies when you have massive black blocs, hundreds or thousands big, otherwise you are still just as noticeable

I have seen police afraid to engage 15-30 people. Perhaps it was because they had suspicion of who some of those people were and knew they were willing to engage the police. There will never be anything safe or non-confrontational about challenging the state.




(especially when individuals customise their stuff) and at risk of surveillance. I've also seen examples where being in black bloc actually increased your chance of being nabbed, for example when the bloc was a tiny group and very noticeable amongst the wider demonstration. Another time when the police stood around grabbing everyone who turned up in a black hoodie. I largely agree with this quote,
http://anarchistnews.org/node/16910[/quote]



1.)It isn’t likely to spread.

Pre-1999 in the US I don't remember hearing about or seeing the level of militancy that I see now so I'd have to think that it is spreading. There are some post may day reports here that kind of break down the myth that 'it's just the black blocers coming out at these things then the militancy goes away. It wasn't just Seattle and Oakland (or Portland) where things kicked off. (yeah it's tumblr but it has a decent list one after another of what was going on) http://socialrupture.tumblr.com/



If our goal is mass public resistance to capitalism in a direct and confrontational way, then spreading our tactics is paramount. The problem is, for most people, the black block is decidedly “other”. They aren’t familiar with it, it’s frightening looking and for all they know they have to be a card carrying member to join.

I dunno, there are often hundreds of really excited people trailing the blocers cheering etc.. I don't know for sure but I don't think people are afraid of the bloc or even of the courts or the police. I think people are afraid of criticism from their peers and perhaps in doing something 'wrong'. The more the actions are visible the more confidence people get.



Nobody has explained to them that anyone can be a part of it and even if they wanted to join they probably don’t happen to have a backpack full of goggles and hoodies with them. It pretty specifically doesn’t fit into the “easily reproducible tactics” category because it’s got so much prior prep work and understanding that needs to take place.

It's not this hard to understand people aren't stupid.


People all over the world have riots, everyday, without black clothes, and while I understand that they are used partially to prevent law enforcement from busting us, another 1000 people rioting with us would probably be a much better legal shield, and a much more beautiful sight. Starting a riot in plainclothes, if you really feel like a riot is what we need right now, might be more initially dangerous, but much more likely to become something else.

black bloc is a tactic though that people decide to use together- complaining that 'they're not doin it right' doesn't work.

[La Comédie Noire]

It's a pretty neutral tactic if you ask me, doesn't do harm or good. It just goes unnoticed, like everything else the left does.

[Ele'ill]

It's a pretty neutral tactic if you ask me, doesn't do harm or good. It just goes unnoticed, like everything else the left does.

How does it go unnoticed when it's all over the news, being trailed by hundreds of non-bloc participants etc..?

[Koba Junior]

I condemn undirected or inappropriately directed violence, and the anarchistic connotations of the black bloc do not sit well with me. That being said, I believe that certain directed acts of terrorism can be a useful tool in winning concessions and rights for the working class while the bourgeoisie remains in power. The greatest strides made in winning rights for the people were not made, alone, by peaceful demonstration. There is always the looming shadow of violence towards the exploiters that encourages them to be aware of the people's demands.

[Tim Finnegan]

(Why do Stalinists always have to sound painfully solemn when they discuss things like this? Like they're actually drafting a statement to be read out to the bloody Central Committee.)

[Koba Junior]

(Why do Stalinists always have to sound painfully solemn when they discuss things like this? Like they're actually drafting a statement to be read out to the bloody Central Committee.)

Was this comment really necessary? Forgive me if my writing's stiff tone has offended you.

[Fawkes]

Was this comment really necessary? Forgive me if my writing's stiff tone has offended you.

I'm really more concerned with your usage of the word "terrorism"

[Koba Junior]

I'm really more concerned with your usage of the word "terrorism"

I see nothing wrong with the use of revolutionary violence to coerce the bourgeoisie or to destroy their apparatuses of exploitation and anti-proletarian terror.

[Ele'ill]

What kind of revolutionary violence?

[Koba Junior]

What kind of revolutionary violence?

You'll forgive me if I elect to refrain from providing detailed hypothetical scenarios, but, to elaborate, I was referring to direct action against the apparatuses of exploitation and those efforts through which the machinations of counter-revolution and oppression are hamstrung.

[Ele'ill]

You'll forgive me if I elect to refrain from providing detailed hypothetical scenarios, but, to elaborate, I was referring to direct action against the apparatuses of exploitation and those efforts through which the machinations of counter-revolution and oppression are hamstrung.

Well cause you led this all off with 'terrorism' being some how useful..

[Koba Junior]

Well cause you led this all off with 'terrorism' being some how useful..

Terrorism can be useful when directed appropriately. The striking of fear into the heart of an exploiter can be useful in winning concessions from him. It always carries the inherent risk of triggering oppressive security measures, but, then again, so does any revolutionary activity. Frankly, I think terrorism gets a bad rap.

[blake 3:17]

At these demonstrations you've been to was anybody else other than those bloc'd up confronting the state in a militant manner?

Yes, others were. I`ve never seen anyone `bloc`d up` do anything very militant other than break a window. Maybe it`s a Toronto thing.


Frankly, I think terrorism gets a bad rap.

Ouch!

[Ele'ill]

Yes, others were. I`ve never seen anyone `bloc`d up` do anything very militant other than break a window. Maybe it`s a Toronto thing.

What were these other people outside of the bloc doing that was militant?

[blake 3:17]

What were these other people outside of the bloc doing that was militant?

Two local examples :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Public_Service_Employees_Union#The_First_S trike:_1996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Coalition_Against_Poverty#Queen.27s_Park_r iot_and_aftermath

The only people wearing masks were police.

[Ele'ill]

Two local examples :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Public_Service_Employees_Union#The_First_S trike:_1996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Coalition_Against_Poverty#Queen.27s_Park_r iot_and_aftermath

The only people wearing masks were police.

Would you have not supported this had their faces been covered by masks?

Also specifically


The tension between the Government and OPSEU culminated on March 18, 1996 in a confrontation between the OPP and OPSEU strikers at Queen's Park in Toronto. Ontario Provincial Police riot control officers were called in to escort members of parliament who were being prevented from entering the legislature. MPPs were pelted with rocks and paper cups when they tried to cross the line. The confrontation escalated when police began to push through the line of protesters and violence erupted. At least half a dozen protesters were injured. [5]

How would not concealing your identity be some type of advantage in this situation? When the police pushed through the line of protesters what if there had been a bloc of people with masks who defended themselves and their space?

[PhoenixAsh]

The Black Bloc never was intended as some form of propaganda or recruitment tool. It is purely a strategy designed to provide safety and strength in numbers and create anonymity. Allowing for the use of force and pro-active defence while at the same time defending against the use of force by the tools of reaction. The Black Bloc can be seen as a strategic adoptation and further development of mass protests of the non-CCTV and omni present surveillance society.

It is not a recruitment tool and propaganda is not its main concern. Safety and resistance is.

The state has taken increasing measures to prevent people from covering their faces and create anonymity during anti government and anti capitalist protests. They have even gone so far as to exploit anti-Muslim sentiments in order to pass laws which are now used predominantly against anti-capitalist and anti-state protesters in order to deprive them of their anonymity.

Arguing that the Black Bloc is somehow bad for propaganda is the same as arguing that infantry tactics are somehow bad for the image of the military...it kind of ignores and misses the point.

Media and government forces will always exploit any means they can find to create counter propaganda. Even if a Black Bloc marches without incident they will find a way to create as nasty an atmosphere in the way they portray the event in order to get sentiments rising. That is their function.



That said....violence against induvidual property of civilians...like cars and homes and small shops...is counter productive. And it should be dealt with internally. The purpose of militant action should in my opinion always be directed against the state, the economic system (and therefore systemic corporations and institutions) and their direct protectors.

[blake 3:17]

How would not concealing your identity be some type of advantage in this situation?

Because it`d have been stupid and nobody except a total psycho would have done it. Your`re talking about class struggle as if it were a military operation.

It would be kind of funny seeing a lot of middle aged civil servants in ninja outfits.

[Koba Junior]

Your`re talking about class struggle as if it were a military operation.

It kind of is, in some sense.

[Ele'ill]

Because it`d have been stupid and nobody except a total psycho would have done it. Your`re talking about class struggle as if it were a military operation.

It would be kind of funny seeing a lot of middle aged civil servants in ninja outfits.

It'd be sad seeing a lot of middle aged civil servants in the courts/ jail for a long time. If someone is gonna throw something they're going to do it with their face covered so they don't get identified and arrested. Police/intelligence surveillance has increased A LOT since 1996.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'm really concerned by the way black blocs, terrorism, and propaganda of the deed are all conflated in this thread. Like, black blocs are an incredibly easy tactic to reproduce and create situations that invite broader participation from folk "outside". Propaganda of the deed or terrorism are specialized acts that are difficult to carry out, and don't create situations for others to "join in". I think these distinctions are really crucial.

[ComradeOm]

Arguing that the Black Bloc is somehow bad for propaganda is the same as arguing that infantry tactics are somehow bad for the image of the military...it kind of ignores and misses the pointNot really. It's more like saying that lobbing cluster bombs into urban areas is bad PR for the military. It's a military strategy and it may make perfect military sense but still carries major ramifications outside of this

So the bloc may have originally been conceived with security in mind but to ignore the knock-on effects that this has on other areas (and not just on recruitment and propaganda) is pretty blinkered

[PhoenixAsh]

Not really. It's more like saying that lobbing cluster bombs into urban areas is bad PR for the military. It's a military strategy and it may make perfect military sense but still carries major ramifications outside of this

No it isn't and that was my point.

Black Bloc is a strategy/tactic same as infantry tactics. Lobbing cluster bombs somewhere is a partial expression of that tactic. Since there are numerous Black Blocs wich did not destroy cars or shop windows the equation as protrayed here in this thread is a generalisation.



So the bloc may have originally been conceived with security in mind but to ignore the knock-on effects that this has on other areas (and not just on recruitment and propaganda) is pretty blinkered

The Knock on effect is simply a reaction to the state repressive forces. That will never be accurately displayed in the press and these tactics by the state are geared to create exactly the situation and debate which takes place in this thread.

The alternative is to protest by peaceful means which has never ever accomplished anything...that is actually the reason why the state hammers on peaceful demonstration assigned to a specific location and time.

The Black Bloc is our only protection that allows us to resist and create militant mass action within limited groups...aside from clandestine tactics.

[bricolage]

I have seen police afraid to engage 15-30 people. Perhaps it was because they had suspicion of who some of those people were and knew they were willing to engage the police. There will never be anything safe or non-confrontational about challenging the state.
then to be honest they sound like pretty shit (shit at doing their jobs) police. I don't know the example you're talking about but in my experience most cases like this are more about PR dictats handed down from above.


Pre-1999 in the US I don't remember hearing about or seeing the level of militancy that I see now so I'd have to think that it is spreading.
I don't know too much about America. In the UK there was certainly ten times the militancy you see now in the 70s and 80s when there was a living breathing class movement (with all the limitations that accompanied it) and despite the hyped up talk of black blocs on student smashy smashys and tuc demos it all got quickly eclipsed by the quite obviously non blocced out august riots. now they had reproductive capabilities.


There are some post may day reports here that kind of break down the myth that 'it's just the black blocers coming out at these things then the militancy goes away.
true, but I never said this.


I dunno, there are often hundreds of really excited people trailing the blocers cheering etc.. I don't know for sure but I don't think people are afraid of the bloc or even of the courts or the police. I think people are afraid of criticism from their peers and perhaps in doing something 'wrong'. The more the actions are visible the more confidence people get.
i've never made the argument that 'people' are afraid of black blocs, I'm far more of the opinion they see it as a subcultural clique which has no relation to their lives. i disagree with the patronising notion that 'ordinary people' are too scared to go on the smash (hell it happens all the time) but that in many cases the medium of the black bloc offers to real pathway to this.


It's not this hard to understand people aren't stupid.
this is true and I don't agree with that bit of the quote.


black bloc is a tactic though that people decide to use together- complaining that 'they're not doin it right' doesn't work.
but what it's saying is lets try using another tactic as opposed to falling back on the same set piece spectacles we're used to. i don't think that's too bad a thing to put forwards.

[bricolage]

It'd be sad seeing a lot of middle aged civil servants in the courts/ jail for a long time. If someone is gonna throw something they're going to do it with their face covered so they don't get identified and arrested. Police/intelligence surveillance has increased A LOT since 1996.
this is true, but has it not also increased to the level that putting a mask over your face isn't much protection either?

[blake 3:17]

this is true, but has it not also increased to the level that putting a mask over your face isn't much protection either?

No protection at all. During the G20 here, some people were detained for wearing black clothing.

When people say the Black Bloc provides protection, what do you mean?

[Ele'ill]

then to be honest they sound like pretty shit (shit at doing their jobs) police. I don't know the example you're talking about but in my experience most cases like this are more about PR dictats handed down from above.

Sometimes it's PR other times it's they don't want to get hit in the face with bricks and bottles. No, I'm not saying black bloc can crush the state but it certainly can create temporary space.



I don't know too much about America. In the UK there was certainly ten times the militancy you see now in the 70s and 80s when there was a living breathing class movement (with all the limitations that accompanied it) and despite the hyped up talk of black blocs on student smashy smashys and tuc demos it all got quickly eclipsed by the quite obviously non blocced out august riots. now they had reproductive capabilities.

Not sure why you're trying to compare 'not bloc riots' to 'bloc tactics' as the two are different situations and I'm sure most all participants stand in full applause of one another. I think militancy has re-escalted in the US.


i've never made the argument that 'people' are afraid of black blocs, I'm far more of the opinion they see it as a subcultural clique which has no relation to their lives. i disagree with the patronising notion that 'ordinary people' are too scared to go on the smash (hell it happens all the time) but that in many cases the medium of the black bloc offers to real pathway to this.

Several places I've been have shown that ordinary people can go on the smash as affinities within the bloc because the bloc are ordinary people too.




but what it's saying is lets try using another tactic ....

Go ahead we're waiting.

[Ele'ill]

No protection at all. During the G20 here, some people were detained for wearing black clothing.

When people say the Black Bloc provides protection, what do you mean?

Portland F29 demo- this bloc with the help of another smaller affinity pushed through about seven police lines (motorcycle, bike and riot) and withstood a horse charge to keep the march going.

http://www.becausewemust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/march-front.jpg

[PhoenixAsh]

No protection at all. During the G20 here, some people were detained for wearing black clothing.

When people say the Black Bloc provides protection, what do you mean?

Because it is a lot harder for the police to identify specific induviduals and match them to certain act.

Black Bloc is uniform if done well in appearance. Which prevents and obstructs identification of participants, matching of induviduals and acts and protects and grants anonymity. What is more...identification after a demonstration and matching inudviduals on the basis of photographs and video footage for persecution becomes impossible.

It is also a large close knit mass which makes it harder to penetrate. A Black Bloc operates in unison with a common goal....which again makes it harder to pick off induviduals. Tactical teams have little or no effect in a black bloc which is organised well....and charges are more effectively blocked by the demonstration (the same reason why the riot cops stick close together)...marching in close formation makes it harder to split a demonstration.

Charges by the demonstration on the other hand are also more effective since it isn't a group of induviduals seperately charging but a group enmasse.

[Ele'ill]

and yes ^ the idea of being one group with very little difference between how people are dressed protects those involved

[Fawkes]

Frankly, I think terrorism gets a bad rap.

Probably because the term is used solely by individuals/groups to refer to violence committed by their enemies. Just from a strategic standpoint, it's probably not the best term to use given its intensely negative connotations. While the same could be said of "communism" or "anarchism", those are both names of specific ideologies with no real synonyms, "terrorism" could easily just be replaced with "violence". I've got nothing against committing violent acts with the express purpose of instilling fear in certain groups, I just think the terminology could be more wisely chosen. And also, like Virgin Molotov Cocktail said, black bloc =/= violence

[ComradeOm]

No it isn't and that was my point.

Black Bloc is a strategy/tactic same as infantry tactics. Lobbing cluster bombs somewhere is a partial expression of that tactic. Since there are numerous Black Blocs wich did not destroy cars or shop windows the equation as protrayed here in this thread is a generalisationI don't care about the generalisation, your analogy is still just wrong. Yes, the Bloc is a deliberate tactic but then so is employing cluster bombs in urban areas in support of the infantry. Other infantry tactics include charging with bayonets or holding strong points within a city. The specifics are not important, what is is that there they have ramifications that go beyond the strictly military scope in which they were initially developed

Only an idiot today (of which there are many in the US Army) would assert that infantry/military tactics should be designed and deployed in a purely military context, without reference to the likes of PR. In fact, the latter has been a key determinant in the formulation of US military doctrine and tactics since Weinberger in the 1980s


The Knock on effect is simply a reaction to the state repressive forces. That will never be accurately displayed in the press and these tactics by the state are geared to create exactly the situation and debate which takes place in this threadI don't care about the press and frankly this obsession with some personal duel with the state apparatus is counter-productive. I care about the primary objective of marches and rallies - bringing workers onto the street. This is for the reasons of encouraging the development of class conciousness, damaging the bourgeois hegemony and dragging politics out of parliament and in to the street

In all of these objectives the presence of solid Black Bloc, visually and physically distinct from the rest of the march, is at best pointless and at worst counter-productive


The alternative is to protest by peaceful means which has never ever accomplished anything...that is actually the reason why the state hammers on peaceful demonstration assigned to a specific location and time.

The Black Bloc is our only protection that allows us to resist and create militant mass action within limited groups...aside from clandestine tactics.Well this says it all. Rallies and marches are not an excuse to "create militant mass action". If that's your purpose then fine, dress up in black combat gear and go smash some cars with your friends (read: "limited group"). Just don't pretend that there's anything progressive or interesting about that

As I said above, the real value in marches is in building a genuine mass movement over time. Not revelling in and seeking out confrontation with the state


I've got nothing against committing violent acts with the express purpose of instilling fear in certain groupsOut of curiosity, has that ever achieved political goals? Putting fear into defenceless communities (as practised by the KKK and other sectarian paramilitaries) is easy but I'd be interested in an example where fear through terror has been used in a constructive political fashion

[Fawkes]

Out of curiosity, has that ever achieved political goals? Putting fear into defenceless communities (as practised by the KKK and other sectarian paramilitaries) is easy but I'd be interested in an example where fear through terror has been used in a constructive political fashion

There have been examples of violence against scabs that could be interpreted as "terrorism", and though it's impossible to quantify, I'm sure they've discouraged a hell of a lot of people from crossing picket lines. Also, if cops started being picked off at random in large numbers, the state would probably notice a pretty big influx of resignations

[ComradeOm]

There have been examples of violence against scabs that could be interpreted as "terrorism", and though it's impossible to quantify, I'm sure they've discouraged a hell of a lot of people from crossing picket linesThat's not quite what I was getting at when talking about "political goals". I'd prefer a concrete example from history if possible as to where a terrorist campaign has succeeded in determining policy (or whatever its objectives were) through fear


Also, if cops started being picked off at random in large numbers, the state would probably notice a pretty big influx of resignationsWell, no. That's pretty silly for a number of reasons. One because the resignations would likely not materialise; instead, and there are plenty of examples of this, the police would likely just entrench themselves and ratchet up the brutality a few notches. You can look at organisations like the RUC to see how a police force copes when under direct attack

The other reasons include the fact that you're talking about a campaign of mass violence against the state (and assassinating police "in large numbers" is a wee bit more than simply using fear) and the fact that you're talking about a campaign of mass violence against the state. That's not a typo

The whole worldview that sees you, or the Bloc, pitted against the mighty state is IMO a fundamentally flawed conception. It places far too much emphasis on petty violence and far too much emphasis on you. Let me be clear: you (plural) are not in competition with the state in the stakes of violence. Largely because there can only be one winner there. Talking about assassinating policemen is a stupid fantasy but this mentality is apparent in the very act of suiting up in black combats to do battle with riot police. It's silly and is little more than a modern rehash of propaganda by the deed

[bricolage]

No, I'm not saying black bloc can crush the state but it certainly can create temporary space.
i've never denied that, what I'm saying is a bigger 'temporary space' can be created in another way.


Not sure why you're trying to compare 'not bloc riots' to 'bloc tactics' as the two are different situations and I'm sure most all participants stand in full applause of one another.
well no, many times they aren't in 'full applause'...
but anyway I was using the non black bloc example to show how participation and the reproduction of militant tactics tends to increase when there isn't a uniform associate with it.


I think militancy has re-escalted in the US.
true, but it's not hard to escalate from a position of zero.
the thing is what's it gonna take the escalate it a step further? I dunno, I'm not in the US, but it might not be the same things that go it this far so far.


Several places I've been have shown that ordinary people can go on the smash as affinities within the bloc because the bloc are ordinary people too.
i've been in enough black blocs to know that its made up of ordinary people, hence why I used quotation marks around 'ordinary people'.
what I was getting at is that yes black bloc is in theory a tactic that can be reproduced and it can see big increases in its size (this is evidently happening now), however this largely comes from more people turning up with a mind to be in the bloc and not from others on the demonstration or just out around town spontaneously joining in. maybe that's how it has to be but I don't think.

to use another example from the UK (because it's what I know about, not cos I'm a chauvinist!) when there were the wild student demonstrations at the end of 2010 the first one, when millbank was smashed up, was so big because people could establish an affinity with each other and did what happened. there was no black bloc and if there had been I imagine there would have been far less participation. at all the subsequent demos the real militancy came not from the predominantly university based black bloc but from the masked up kids mad about EMA. i've been in some pretty large black blocs but I've very rarely seen much participation from people who hadn't initially come with a mind to be a part of it, sometimes you have to ask if it's really worth us doing the same thing over and over again just cos thats what we do.

maybe I'm being too critical, to be honest I might be wrong about everything.


Go ahead we're waiting.
it's already happening.

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't care about the generalisation, your analogy is still just wrong. Yes, the Bloc is a deliberate tactic but then so is employing cluster bombs in urban areas in support of the infantry. Other infantry tactics include charging with bayonets or holding strong points within a city. The specifics are not important, what is is that there they have ramifications that go beyond the strictly military scope in which they were initially developed

Where you are wrong is to imply all black blocs are violent. That is the point...one you didn't get. Violence is one of the expressions a Black Bloc COULD use but doesn't necessrilly use or condone.

And to tie that back to the analogy....like you said...a cluster bomb is ONE form of tactics an infantry unit COULD use... but doesn't necessarilly do or have to.

I also do not think they go beyond the scope for which the tactic was initially developed. Saying that is not understanding the purpose of the strategy in the first place.

Black Bloc isn't politics. It is a street battle strategy that can be employed offensively or defensively. How that is extrapolated in ahostile media is not a concern....since basically everything effective or threatening anti-capitalists do is and will be portrayed in a negative fashion and if we are not effective or threatening we will still be ridiculed.

A debate about the propaganda fallout of a Black Bloc's specific tactics is therefore useless...since there are NO viable alternatives.


Only an idiot today (of which there are many in the US Army) would assert that infantry/military tactics should be designed and deployed in a purely military context, without reference to the likes of PR. In fact, the latter has been a key determinant in the formulation of US military doctrine and tactics since Weinberger in the 1980s

As you may have noticed US military tactics do not concern themselves with strategy on the ground but control of the press as a direct results of the post-Vietnam debate on the role of the media in the US loss of domestic support for the war. US military tactics on the ground however have not changed one single bit.



I don't care about the press and frankly this obsession with some personal duel with the state apparatus is counter-productive. I care about the primary objective of marches and rallies - bringing workers onto the street. This is for the reasons of encouraging the development of class conciousness, damaging the bourgeois hegemony and dragging politics out of parliament and in to the street

That is not the primary purpose of all marches. Not to mention that a whole lot of marches have shown that that tactic hasn't worked and people actually grow disillusioned with useless marches and protests which invariably will not change one single thing.

Protests and rallies get less and less attention and will peter out if ignored long enough and are regulated into complete ineffectiveness.

So singular tactics never work. Ever.



In all of these objectives the presence of solid Black Bloc, visually and physically distinct from the rest of the march, is at best pointless and at worst counter-productive

Well this says it all. Rallies and marches are not an excuse to "create militant mass action". If that's your purpose then fine, dress up in black combat gear and go smash some cars with your friends (read: "limited group"). Just don't pretend that there's anything progressive or interesting about that

As I said above, the real value in marches is in building a genuine mass movement over time. Not revelling in and seeking out confrontation with the state


Most marches that do not have a black bloc are ignored....and are therefore ineffective and will crreate desillusion.

And if they are not ignored they are faced with mass repression from the cops with no way of defending themselves....people tend not to come to marches anymore anyway because of that.

Sure there may be some residual anger and there maybe some outcries....but eventually that will die out.

Marches need to reach their objective. And creating a massmovement is NOT something that motivates induviduals.




Out of curiosity, has that ever achieved political goals? Putting fear into defenceless communities (as practised by the KKK and other sectarian paramilitaries) is easy but I'd be interested in an example where fear through terror has been used in a constructive political fashion

Now you are getting completely and utterly ridiculous.

[Fawkes]

ComradeOm:

I never said the key to victory is to kill as many cops as possible. When it comes to straight up violence, the state's got that on lock. Revolutions aren't won by killing people, they're won by organizing workers, taking control of our workplaces and communities, and defending what we've taken. Propaganda of the deed failed because it was individualistic and detached from broader class struggle. However, within the context of a class struggle, a little violence against police never hurt anyone.

All I said was "I've got nothing against committing violent acts with the express purpose of instilling fear in certain groups", it's not like I endorsed it as the surefire way to win the revolution. Even though individual acts of violence are obviously not the most effective means of winning a revolution, I'm not gonna bemoan the death of McKinnley or some cops.

[Ele'ill]

true, but it's not hard to escalate from a position of zero.

It's hard to find the tactic that grows as this one has and works as this one has. Also, It's just a tactic but I'm not sure if this discussion is becoming a critique of this specific tactic or of property destruction and militant engagement of police at demonstrations/occupations so I'd like to drop this and go to this important question you ask-




the thing is what's it gonna take the escalate it a step further?


These specific actions? I think for everything US related but mainly thinking about Occupy- Probably time and several mini flash points along the way, involving relative mass participation of some sort, for people to keep in their memories to give them experience and confidence. The time factor is important and I think a lot of radicals aren't patient enough. People need to immerse themselves in confrontational situations for a while before they start to understand how things work, how the state reacts, what its weaknesses are and how to use that to our advantage. I find that the 'almost-radical' groups tend to get sent into a fervor of activity around the time that radicals start doing their thing around the time a larger mass movement starts to engage the state (occupy) although of course that's that other bothersome discussion on why it has failed already etc..

*I think constant agitation is important and I hate multi year long lulls of nothing

[ComradeOm]

Where you are wrong is to imply all black blocs are violentExcept that I'm not doing that. Not once have I suggesting above that Black Blocs are inherently violent. Read my posts again

(If you insist on taking your analogy literally, which I was not doing, then it's you who is asserting that all Blocs are violent. Unless one knows of a military that employs passive infantry tactics...)

To use a different analogy, a football manager might employ a tactical system that emphasises extreme defence at the expense of, well, attractive attacking football. This is a valid option but it may have the knock-on effect of alienating the supporters and ultimately driving down gate receipts as people stop turning up to watch anti-football. That is, a valid footballing tactic has poor ramifications beyond the pitch. Understand?

Spelling out what this means in reality: just because the Bloc is (arguably) a reasonable security precaution does not excuse its impact in other areas. It is perfectly possible for this tactic to be "bad for propaganda", to use one example, even though it was designed for something else

That's my point. Not the violence inherent in the system


A debate about the propaganda fallout of a Black Bloc's specific tactics is therefore useless...since there are NO viable alternativesThat's just not true. As evidenced by the countless numbers of people, both today and in the past, who manage to march and protest without entirely accessorising in black


As you may have noticed US military tactics do not concern themselves with strategy on the ground but control of the press as a direct results of the post-Vietnam debate on the role of the media in the US loss of domestic support for the war. US military tactics on the ground however have not changed one single bit. Again, you're wrong. The whole point of the post-Vietnam fallout within the US military establishment, which by 1990 would have coalesced as the Powell Doctrine, was US Army tactics were to be much more cautious, and lean heavily on the overwhelming application of firepower, in order to limit casualties and the resulting poor publicity. This entailed, contrary to your assertion, a significant tactical shift "on the ground". Stan Goff's Full Spectrum Disorder has a good bit on that


That is not the primary purpose of all marches. Not to mention that a whole lot of marches have shown that that tactic hasn't worked and people actually grow disillusioned with useless marches and protests which invariably will not change one single thing. Whereas the Black Blocs have led to... what? If you want to argue that some marches are useless, then fine. If so then the Black Bloc is equally pointless. Unless you're an attention starved kid who thinks that appearing on TV and 'getting some attention' is the objective. Word to the wise: it's not

Marches are not about effecting change. At least, not in most cases. It's nice when they do but this should not be the expectation. The march is the objective in itself. Getting people on to the street is the victory. After that it's about engaging with them. In that the Bloc - that alien element - is a hindrance

Nobody, outside of a bona fide revolutionary scenario, is going to march to a socialist revolution


Now you are getting completely and utterly ridiculous.By questioning when a campaign of fear, wrought by violence, has effected political change? By all means, feel free to provide an example

The reality is that 'terror', in the context used here, is a massively misleading term. The great 'terrors' of history haven't depended on fear for their impact: they have been campaigns of mass violence in which fear was a simple, if prominent, side-effect. When people talk about "instilling fear in certain groups" what they really mean is applying violence and repression to segments of the population


Propaganda of the deed failed because it was individualistic and detached from broader class struggle. However, within the context of a class struggle, a little violence against police never hurt anyone.To be honest I don't see the class struggle context there. Class struggle is a constant, after all. Violence has a role in revolutionary struggle but this emerges in, surprise, revolutionary periods as the struggle between classes escalates into open war... but before then it's only counter-productive. For reasons that are so well known as to hardly merit rehashing

If I was a cynical man then I'd suggest the the only difference between propaganda by the deed and some anarchist practices* today is the tendency to drop 'class struggle' in front of whatever the latest variant of physical force is in favour this week. I don't think the move away from isolated individual terrorists to a small distinct group of balaclava wearing activists is significant progress

*It's depressing but I have to offer the inevitable disclaimer that this is not a slur against anarchism, plenty of anarchists are productively involved in real efforts to further the class struggle, etc, etc

[SpiritiualMarxist]

Black Bloc is fun and all, but does it lead to building a sustainable movement that will start a revolution? In vast majority of cases... no, for reasons probably laid out by previous posters of how it divides the working class.
Secondly, in the very slim(<1%) revolutionary potential of the tactic, I feel it is extremely weak versus showing that you are a regular person willing to risk your reputation, jail, etc for the sake of making society better. Thats just far more powerful than people coming in disguise, do your little show, then running away.

sustainable movement is my litmus test of tactics.

[PhoenixAsh]

Black Bloc is fun and all, but does it lead to building a sustainable movement that will start a revolution? In vast majority of cases... no, for reasons probably laid out by previous posters of how it divides the working class.
Secondly, in the very slim(<1%) revolutionary potential of the tactic, I feel it is extremely weak versus showing that you are a regular person willing to risk your reputation, jail, etc for the sake of making society better. Thats just far more powerful than people coming in disguise, do your little show, then running away.

sustainable movement is my litmus test of tactics.

No. But neither do failed marches and protests which accomplish no direct effect and are simply ignored by the government. As much people are turned off by the latest demonstration pro-this anti-that or simply ignore it as just an other event...

And neither do marches and demonstrations which are met with repressive government violence and aggression. Nothing will be a damper on show up more than a few bloody noses and broken bones.

These days arrests follow often AFTER the demonstration and the withdrawel of the news crews. Outside of the public eye thanks to CCTV and surveillance operations. Nothing to show there except for a criminal record, job loss and the inability to feed your family. Most people will not risk that and it can not be expected of people. And lets face it...who the hell cares if a couple of more people end up in jail? The US has the highest % of its population in jail....no real outcry. People are detained indefinately. No real outcry. People are tortured...where are the masses protesting?? So no...people do not give a shit if a couple of hundred "hippies" are hauled of to the nearest police station. That much is glaringly clear from the occupy movement.

Black Bloc is a tactic. ONe that can be and is effectively employed. It doesn't rule out other tactics, it doesn't say other tactics are bad...if offers protection and security and above all unity and anonimity.





The working class will be devided over almost everything. It is the nature of the system. Perhaps you have noticed the fact that the working class is devided over gay marriage, racism, sexism, abortion, taxes, austerity measures, capitalism....

[PhoenixAsh]

Except that I'm not doing that. Not once have I suggesting above that Black Blocs are inherently violent. Read my posts again

I did. I read you equating black bloc tactics with lobbing cluster bombs.




(If you insist on taking your analogy literally, which I was not doing, then it's you who is asserting that all Blocs are violent. Unless one knows of a military that employs passive infantry tactics...)

Every military uses passive infantry tactict. Infantry tactics range from escort duty, guard duty, combat duty (amongst which defence duty), mine sweeping, search and rescue, disaster control etc.



To use a different analogy, a football manager might employ a tactical system that emphasises extreme defence at the expense of, well, attractive attacking football. This is a valid option but it may have the knock-on effect of alienating the supporters and ultimately driving down gate receipts as people stop turning up to watch anti-football. That is, a valid footballing tactic has poor ramifications beyond the pitch. Understand?

I don't much like footbal. So no I do not understand. The purpose of the game is to win. If you win people will show up. If you get defeated it doesn't matter how attractive your game was...

Also I do not think class war is a game.


Spelling out what this means in reality: just because the Bloc is (arguably) a reasonable security precaution does not excuse its impact in other areas. It is perfectly possible for this tactic to be "bad for propaganda", to use one example, even though it was designed for something else

Eh...yes....it does. Because Black Bloc is not theory. It is a strategy designed to reach a goal. That goal is not propaganda nor is it recruitment....nor is it to be used in such a way.

And like I said...everything can be bad for propaganda if the other team is better at it or better equiped. Marching peacefully can be bad for propaganda...and often is...bad for propaganda in the mass media.


That's my point. Not the violence inherent in the system.

That's just not true. As evidenced by the countless numbers of people, both today and in the past, who manage to march and protest without entirely accessorising in black

Yes...true...and none of these have led to a sustained mass movement much less accomplished anything.



Again, you're wrong. The whole point of the post-Vietnam fallout within the US military establishment, which by 1990 would have coalesced as the Powell Doctrine, was US Army tactics were to be much more cautious, and lean heavily on the overwhelming application of firepower, in order to limit casualties and the resulting poor publicity. This entailed, contrary to your assertion, a significant tactical shift "on the ground". Stan Goff's Full Spectrum Disorder has a good bit on that

The US doctrine in Vietnam has always been overwhelming firepower. So nothing much changed there. Their on the ground depolyment and operations are pretty much the same as in Vietnam considering that the theater of war is vastly different.

Most of the strategic and tactic changes that did take place did not take place because of alteration of the doctrine but because of modernisation and innovation of weapon systems.

What did predominantly change massively is the way the US military viewed and worked with the press. Where in Vietnam the press was relatively free to roam about this has now been totally abandoned in favor of endebted reporters and strict control of the flow of information.




Whereas the Black Blocs have led to... what? If you want to argue that some marches are useless, then fine. If so then the Black Bloc is equally pointless. Unless you're an attention starved kid who thinks that appearing on TV and 'getting some attention' is the objective. Word to the wise: it's not

The Black Bloc has led to better defendable marches against police aggression, succesfull employment against neo nazi's, succesfull attacks on corporations and the police....and prevented numerous people from getting arrested. That is the entire purpopse of the Black Bloc: protect the protesters...provide anonymity....provide safety...offer a mass to strike back with. Beyond that the Blac Bloc has no purpose...again...that is the whole point.



Marches are not about effecting change. At least, not in most cases. It's nice when they do but this should not be the expectation. The march is the objective in itself. Getting people on to the street is the victory. After that it's about engaging with them. In that the Bloc - that alien element - is a hindrance

Right,...do the people that join the march know that their presence is not about affecting chage? No. For them it is the idea that a march will somehow make a difference in the direct relevant issue. They are not concerned with overall strategy of party. They are concerned about a specific topic and want something to be changed. They sure as hell do not march for the sake of marching.

The longer it takes for change to happen the less motivated people get. And like we saw with the Occupy movement....it will just slowely disappear.

Engaging is nice and all but...it is extremely slow and in the mean time wether a black bloc is pressent or not....the demonstrations will invariably be attacked by the cops.



Nobody, outside of a bona fide revolutionary scenario, is going to march to a socialist revolution

My point exactly.



By questioning when a campaign of fear, wrought by violence, has effected political change? By all means, feel free to provide an example

Most people have never seen a black bloc operate. And what they see is manipulated by the press. So I find your assertion of campaign of terror in the light of this topic more than a little absurd.



The reality is that 'terror', in the context used here, is a massively misleading term. The great 'terrors' of history haven't depended on fear for their impact: they have been campaigns of mass violence in which fear was a simple, if prominent, side-effect. When people talk about "instilling fear in certain groups" what they really mean is applying violence and repression to segments of the population


..



To be honest I don't see the class struggle context there. Class struggle is a constant, after all. Violence has a role in revolutionary struggle but this emerges in, surprise, revolutionary periods as the struggle between classes escalates into open war... but before then it's only counter-productive. For reasons that are so well known as to hardly merit rehashing

Yes go tell that to the riot cops.... But your suggestion that protestors alternatively to organising against it let themselves be beaten to a bloody pulp is duely noted.




If I was a cynical man then I'd suggest the the only difference between propaganda by the deed and some anarchist practices* today is the tendency to drop 'class struggle' in front of whatever the latest variant of physical force is in favour this week. I don't think the move away from isolated individual terrorists to a small distinct group of balaclava wearing activists is significant progress

*It's depressing but I have to offer the inevitable disclaimer that this is not a slur against anarchism, plenty of anarchists are productively involved in real efforts to further the class struggle, etc, etc

I have no answer to this....not because I can't think of anyting but because I think this is sentimental nonsense.

[Ele'ill]

I found this on the topic of black bloc and current events

http://pugetsoundanarchists.org/node/1701


The Magnificent Community of Rioters
Fri, 05/11/2012 - 1:27pm — Anonymous
"Whether this negation manifests itself without betraying itself or whether its forces will be hijacked once again to serve the calculated spread of disaster has nothing to do with necessity; it depends on the melancholic decision made by a few free elements to make a practical use of their consciousness, in other words, to sow in the world of the Spectacle a Terror which is the inverse of the terror that reigns at present."

drawn from Tiqqun's What is Critical Metaphysics?

There is a massive and unforgivable "community" threatened by the courageous acts of property destruction on May Day. It is the community of citizens: a false community made up of the prisoners of a civilization so destructive and insane that it rewards even its most vocal defenders with dementia and cancer. The law-abiding citizens are embroiled in a global civil war between the forces of domination and the forces of chaotic freedom but are not allowed to speak of such a war. In taking a position of either mute or principled neutrality, they side with the corpse machine of capitalism even as it robs them of any possibility of love, solidarity, and hope. The timeless sadness of the suburbs perfectly captures the spiritual condition of the community of citizens. In the most basic ethical sense, the modern citizens are inseparable from the "Good Germans" who quietly watched the trains to Poland leave full of Jews, communists and homosexuals and return empty. The damage done by the citizens' ten thousand year old civilization to our living planet and the full spectrum of dispossession in our own lives is approaching the unresolvable, and for most of us the possibility of a healed life has faded from possibility. We are left only with the eternal Spirit of destruction and the revolutionary experiments which grow in the Spirit's shadow.

Anarchism and its language of insurrection has provided some of us with the grammar we need to name our enemies. Riots and combative street demonstrations take place in one the many theaters of our battle with those enemies, and the Black Bloc is one of the tactics used by our fighters to both hide their "legal" identities from the enemy and provide a model of resistance for those who are awakening from the dreamless sleep of the citizen.

What occurs in this mass of unruly, unpredictable bodies that makes up the Black Bloc?

1. The emergence of a temporary and unspoken solidarity which brings life into the space of revolt, and which - if only for a few blocks - transforms our lives from unreachable images into passionate experiences.
2. In the spread of unmediated, targeted friendship among the rioters we witness the creation of a fleeting but literally timeless Event ; those present during the Event are pushed into a world of infinite dimensions by the public, anonymous, criminal acts of war carried out by the rioters against the symbols of power and wealth.
3. We are blessed by an ecstatic moment of communion which feels different in nearly every way from even the closest moments of "togetherness" permitted in this society, and which imbues us with a sense of terrible, destructive purpose, pushing us beyond the impoverished "selves" constructed for us by our families, schools, churches, and jobs.
4. A negative community comes into being , and in its mute violence we watch the unspeakable fury of the living direct itself against its true target: the dead world of work, merchandise, and the police.


What occurred first on May Day in Seattle was the drawing of the line, and immediately afterwards those of us present at the anti-capitalist march were witnesses to the ancient miracle of a collective crossing of the line. The experience of mass, violent disobedience to the law never fails to open vast psychological spaces in which previously terrorized and alienated individuals are able to discover their immense, subversive power and share it with other people. The community of rioters entered into presence, found itself permanently at odds with the community of citizens, and began to supersede itself at the moment the first bank windows were shattered. The rioters' discovery of collective strength is a nightmare for the rulers and technicians of this disgusting, authoritarian society, and the positive, self-affirming hatred shared by those who crossed the line on May Day is the true object of the massive legal repression and social condemnation being called for by the capitalist media. The state does not care about punishing property attackers as such: their real target is the possibility of illegal self-organization and the spread of conspiratorial friendship. This is an important point that must not be overlooked.

The Black Bloc cannot be reduced to the categories of the Law - it is neither a family or a gang - and it cannot be understood by the corporate media scum who maintain the vast Spectacle which makes the horror of the present seem normal, consensual, and beyond refusal. In a mass imagination wounded by television, anti-depressants, school, and video games, the desperate image of true freedom converges in the violence of the Black Bloc and in the coming age must pass beyond it.

AS ALWAYS, ONE DAY OF INSURRECTION IS WORTH A THOUSAND CENTURIES OF NORMALITY
Wolves of Solidarity - Pacific Column
2012

I think this


What occurred first on May Day in Seattle was the drawing of the line, and immediately afterwards those of us present at the anti-capitalist march were witnesses to the ancient miracle of a collective crossing of the line. The experience of mass, violent disobedience to the law never fails to open vast psychological spaces in which previously terrorized and alienated individuals are able to discover their immense, subversive power and share it with other people.

is very true.

[ComradeOm]

I did. I read you equating black bloc tactics with lobbing cluster bombsTo further an analogy that you had made regarding infantry tactics. Now you are breaking this down line by line in some sort of inane defence of your own analogy. This is pointless and I'm not going to waste time on someone incapable of grasping such a simple concept after three explanatory posts. Not if every point will be as stupidly laboured as this

Honestly, I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post. This was all clearly my mistake for even trying to have a discussion


Also I do not think class war is a gameYou are either an idiot or just incredibly literal minded. Do I think I was comparing the Black Bloc is comparable to either cluster bombs or a game of football? Or are you just incapable of thinking metaphorically?

Which leads to the rather disturbing thought that your infantry tactics analogy may have been meant as entirely serious/straight...

[PhoenixAsh]

To further an analogy that you had made regarding infantry tactics. Now you are breaking this down line by line in some sort of inane defence of your own analogy. This is pointless and I'm not going to waste time on someone incapable of grasping such a simple concept after three explanatory posts. Not if every point will be as stupidly laboured as this

Honestly, I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post. This was all clearly my mistake for even trying to have a discussion

You are either an idiot or just incredibly literal minded. Do I think I was comparing the Black Bloc is comparable to either cluster bombs or a game of football? Or are you just incapable of thinking metaphorically?

Which leads to the rather disturbing thought that your infantry tactics analogy may have been meant as entirely serious/straight...

No you took a small part o a bigger equation.... Infantry tactics and cluster bombs are not mutually exchangeable...because they are not the same. And yet you chose for your own analogy...which you claimed was better than mine btw....one of the most violent of the whole set of examples you could have chosen.

Hence my point that peopl,e are equaltuing the black bloc with violence. Somehting you denied doing.

So what exactly was your point in using cluster bombs lobbed into urban areas as an example??

...I do not mind having a discussion if it is a honest one...so keep your arguments straight and honest.

And as for your little jab that three explanatory posts later I do not grasp your specific take on this?....Well...all I have to say to that is: DITTO

[ellipsis]

I don't know why any mods having done this, but moved to P and P.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Fucking love watching shit get fucked up.

Much more fun (for everyone) that just listening to some bore like Alex Callicinos or Peter Taaffe go on for two hours to a stage-managed crowd quoting some shit from the 19th century. Seriously.

[Tim Finnegan]

Philistine. The droning, nasal tones of Comrade Callinicos are music to the ears of any dedicated revolutionary.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Only an idiot today (of which there are many in the US Army) would assert that infantry/military tactics should be designed and deployed in a purely military context, without reference to the likes of PR. In fact, the latter has been a key determinant in the formulation of US military doctrine and tactics since Weinberger in the 1980s

Black Bloc = Sexy
Paper Hocking Dude in Anachronistic Hat = Not Sexy

[ridethejetski]

Smashing up a McDonalds looks fun but its pretty pointless and I'd be annoyed if my local McDonalds was smashed up when I'm trying to get a burger.

[nomad05273k]

I like black blocing cos it shows solidarity, which is something that scares our opposition

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Smashing up a McDonalds looks fun but its pretty pointless and I'd be annoyed if my local McDonalds was smashed up when I'm trying to get a burger.

Why? Their burgers are shit and overpriced.

[eyeheartlenin]

Concerning the "black bloc," what happened at Genoa, in 2001, during a demonstration, deserves to be remembered (from Green Left Weekly) :

" ... There is considerable evidence that police provocateurs infiltrated the anarchist Black Bloc, seeking to cause as much mayhem as possible. Sometimes the provocateurs were even escorted around town by police.

"Father Don Vitaliano, a radical priest, said that he saw some dressed as Black Bloc-ers come out of a police van and talk quite easily with police.

"Rifundazione Comunista senator Gigi Malabarba, said 'I saw with my own eyes some people dressed as Black Bloc come out of the police station and speak to the poice in freindly terms in French, German and English,' suggesting they may have come from the secret services of these other countries...."

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/24571

[bcbm]

yes the black bloc is cops we know:rolleyes:

[pastradamus]

I have found that black blocs have ruined otherwise peaceful demo's and have given the media an easy oppurtunity to smear the protesters with the same brush.

[bcbm]

what will the media think?!:(

[Krano]

what will the media think?!:(
Thats not the problem, the problem is that the state knows how to respond to vandalism with more violence and repression mostly.

[bcbm]

thank god they havent figured out how to respond to peaceful protests

[Krano]

thank god they havent figured out how to respond to peaceful protests
Stasi didn't know how to deal with it either, nothing has changed since then.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think educating the working-class about forming a political class-conscious is much more productive than spray painting and breaking windows. Just my opinion. Like I said, it's merely an act of symbolism. Marxism, anarchism, ect. is supposed to be a ideology for the working-class, correct?


Let me guess, by "educate the working class," (:rolleyes:) you mean, you spit out a bunch of tired labor jargon like proletariat, bourgeoisie, capitalist mode of production, estranged labor, etc? The best way to "teach," or "educate," is by action, there is a theory out there you know in which action can be used as propaganda in of itself.

I also would point out that not every black bloc has engaged in action such as the ones mentioned above. While on the one hand, I think we should be more strategic and pick better targets, I'm not going to criticize workers taking action because the bourgeois (much to everyones shock) find such actions horrifying and "extreme."

Also, said actions aren't just petty vandalism or fucking shit up and I find it be extremely hilarious that some would criticize us for "ruining," demos or protests or for being to "radical." Yes, the horror of poor people being pissed off and deciding to take action. No, it's better to just sit around doing nothing but smoking, fucking around in drum circles and then occasionally leaving the tents to hold up some signs and shout shit. That's going to be so much more influential and change things as opposed to direct action.

I also agree with others that it could help agitate and radicalize workers whom otherwise wouldn't be.


Stasi didn't know how to deal with it either, nothing has changed since then.

I'm fairly confident he was being facetious.

They know full well how to deal with peaceful protests and the most glaring example in America would be pretty much every single civil rights protest during the 60s.

[Krano]

I'm fairly confident he was being facetious.

I know, but the idea that you can out violence the state is ridiculous.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Why? Their burgers are shit and overpriced.

I like McDonald's (I'm easy to please, though), but it'd make my day if a mob of assholes in black destroyed a McDonalds that I was in.

[bcbm]

I know, but the idea that you can out violence the state is ridiculous.

who's trying to?

[Krano]

who's trying to?
Pointless vandalism will lead to state violence which will probably lead to counter violence, and i don't know how you get support from the working class by smashing store windows. And another thing, how can you beat the state at it's own game? in a country like America where the state prints money endlessly seems kind of pointless to expect that property damage can't be easily fixed by the state.

[Tabarnack]

what will the media think?!:(

The media influences people, and the reason there is so much attention on the BB is that they delegitimize movements through senseless violence, and yes they are mostly infiltrated as any research on the matter will show.

[Ele'ill]

Pointless vandalism will lead to state violence which will probably lead to counter violence

The existence of a state is violence- that tension is already there.




and i don't know how you get support from the working class by smashing store windows.

Well it's easy when you're working class and doing it.



And another thing, how can you beat the state at it's own game? in a country like America where the state prints money endlessly seems kind of pointless to expect that property damage can't be easily fixed by the state.

Mostly revolution often feels kind of pointless until we start getting away with all kinds of shit while the state panics.

[Ele'ill]

The media influences people, and the reason there is so much attention on the BB is that they delegitimize movements through senseless violence, and yes they are mostly infiltrated as any research on the matter will show.

The media won't have a hard time slandering peaceful demos and actions at all cause (they wont' have to) the strict adherence to pacifism has already done the state's job for it and neutralized any 'radical' elements. The demos I've been too the police fucked up the peaceful demonstrators who were expecting different but couldn't catch the bloc.

lol 'research' - no they're not 'mostly' infiltrated.

[Krano]

Mostly revolution often feels kind of pointless until we start getting away with all kinds of shit while the state panics.
IRA did 411 million pounds worth of property damage with a single bomb, it didn't bring down the British government and neither did it change any policies.

[Ele'ill]

IRA did 411 million pounds worth of property damage with a single bomb, it didn't bring down the British government and neither did it change any policies.

Are you under the impression that the goal of property destruction is to bankrupt a government?

[Tabarnack]

The existence of a state is violence- that tension is already there.

Not the justification for the police to use violence against peaceful demonstrators, the BB provides this.


Well it's easy when you're working class and doing it.The working class create, we do not destroy, if you actually work for a living you know that.


Mostly revolution often feels kind of pointless until we start getting away with all kinds of shit while the state panics.Not true, revolutions always happen when Mr and Mrs normal join in and those in the security apparatus refuse to follow orders anymore, why do you think the cops where forbidden to talk to the occupy people, the authorities would much rather have useful idiots dressed in black throwing stones.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

IRA did 411 million pounds worth of property damage with a single bomb, it didn't bring down the British government and neither did it change any policies.

:rolleyes:

Point being?

[Krano]

:rolleyes:

Point being?
Point being if it didn't work on larger scale it's pretty stupid to expect it to work on a smaller scale.

[Tabarnack]

:rolleyes:

Point being?

The point being that instead of weakening the British security apparatus it reinforced it, there have been many reports in the mainstream media of the IRA being infiltrated by British security forces, connect the dots.

[Ele'ill]

Not the justification for the police to use violence against peaceful demonstrators, the BB provides this.

So basically you're saying 'a threat of violence justifies state violence' (even if there's no black bloc going on) and you're right because it and any violent upheaval is a threat to the state.




The working class create, we do not destroy, if you actually work for a living you know that.

i dunno what you mean whats this work you speak of?



Not true, revolutions always happen when Mr and Mrs normal join in

but I am a mr and mrs normal joining in which is what I originally said



and those in the security apparatus refuse to follow orders anymore

or more likely when they're run off or killed

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Not the justification for the police to use violence against peaceful demonstrators, the BB provides this.

No, we don't. The police have and will use violence against protesters whether they were taking direct action or not. It's ultimately irrelevant as the police (as obedient dogs of the state) will repress and use violence against any and all groups or people who pose a threat to capital whether they be peaceful or otherwise.

http://truthquake.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/occupy-wall-street-st-protest-women-sprayed-face-mace-penned-in-new-york-nypd-ny-police-brutality-state-martial-law-new-world-order-illuminati-troy-davis-bank-bailouts-debt-crisis-arrests-arrested-beaten-beatings-guns.jpg

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/johnmcquaid/files/2011/11/spray.jpg

http://cbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/wall_street_protest6.jpg

All of the above happened during peaceful protests, so either you can sit down and take it or you can do something about it.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/OWS-police1-620x370.jpg


The working class create, we do not destroy, if you actually work for a living you know that.

Lmfao, what? What the fuck do you think a revolution implies? A revolution is nothing but destruction, violence, terror and action.

I take it you were against the riots in Greece where Anarchists were actively combating the police and the state too, huh? You're right, better to just bend over and take the long dick of the law and pray they give you a courtesy lick before doing so.

Maybe you forgot about Scott Olsen. :rolleyes:


Point being if it didn't work on larger scale it's pretty stupid to expect it to work on a smaller scale.

To lay the claim that the failures of the IRA are solely because of various actions in which they have taken is rather simplistic, imo.

[Tim Finnegan]

Not the justification for the police to use violence against peaceful demonstrators, the BB provides this.
How many black blocs were there at Kent State, I wonder?

[Tabarnack]

How many black blocs were there at Kent State, I wonder?

and Kent state was a turning point and the beginning of the end of the Vietnam war because these were just everyday kids that everybody could relate to...

[Ele'ill]

and Kent state was a turning point and the beginning of the end of the Vietnam war because these were just everyday kids that everybody could relate to...


So the trick is to subscribe to 'everyday' appearance/activities and then get killed. No I actually don't think it happened like that and again there's more to the story.

[Tabarnack]

So basically you're saying 'a threat of violence justifies state violence' (even if there's no black bloc going on) and you're right because it and any violent upheaval is a threat to the state.

I'm saying there is no reason to assist the state in it's criminal activity.



or more likely when they're run off or killed

The Russian revolution started when the Cossack refused to shoot down peaceful demonstrators, in nearly all revolution there is a breakdown in the chain of command and those who repressed the population join in, how can any "Marxist" not know this ?

[Tabarnack]

So the trick is to subscribe to 'everyday' appearance/activities and then get killed. No I actually don't think it happened like that and again there's more to the story.

I'm old enough to remember Kent state and what happened afterwards with almost all colleges on strikes, it was a turning point, which means many lives were saved eventually, 3 million dead Vietnameses, you think that's not enough...

[Krano]

The Russian revolution started when the Cossack refused to shoot down peaceful demonstrators, in nearly all revolution there is a breakdown in the chain of command and those who repressed the population join in, how can any "Marxist" not know this ?
Revolutions in Eastern Bloc countries happened pretty much the same way, for example Honecker giving orders to shoot all protestors but as we all know now that didn't happen.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What happens when 1 million people are out on the street in a political struggle, then, demanding a change of political direction?

Should they just avoid any violence cos, you know, when the Guardian reading, lentil-eating 3rd sector worker reads their paper in the morning they'll turn to vote Liberal Democrat to 'counter extremism'?

My experiences of the student protests in the UK, and the riots last summer, tell me that when violence is meted out to working class people, that's when you know the ruling class are worried. The media will slam the working class, the poor, the unions and the strikers whether they are peaceful or violent.

Note: there is also a distinction between violence: violence towards fellow workers and innocent bystanders (i.e. workers not taking part in a demo/protest) is abhorrent and scabby, defensive violence against the pigs/violence against capitalist property is really a different matter.

If you're scared of what the media thinks of your violence then maybe your best bet is to stay at home and criticise on the sidelines, because when push comes to shove, the working class will rise up and will defend themselves appropriately. That is the nature of political struggle.

[pastradamus]

Are you under the impression that the goal of property destruction is to bankrupt a government?

No, but property like the aforementioned post, is the key to a governments control. Assets, money and weaponary/soldiers are the three controlling factors that a government uses to control its people.

An attack on the military alone is never enough to bring down a government with guerilla-style tactics.

[pastradamus]

What happens when 1 million people are out on the street in a political struggle, then, demanding a change of political direction?

Should they just avoid any violence cos, you know, when the Guardian reading, lentil-eating 3rd sector worker reads their paper in the morning they'll turn to vote Liberal Democrat to 'counter extremism'?

My experiences of the student protests in the UK, and the riots last summer, tell me that when violence is meted out to working class people, that's when you know the ruling class are worried. The media will slam the working class, the poor, the unions and the strikers whether they are peaceful or violent.

Note: there is also a distinction between violence: violence towards fellow workers and innocent bystanders (i.e. workers not taking part in a demo/protest) is abhorrent and scabby, defensive violence against the pigs/violence against capitalist property is really a different matter.

If you're scared of what the media thinks of your violence then maybe your best bet is to stay at home and criticise on the sidelines, because when push comes to shove, the working class will rise up and will defend themselves appropriately. That is the nature of political struggle.

I think you underestimate the contol the media has over people. Obviously the student protests were big news and largely non-violent but look at the violent london-riots and the impact the media had then? I read not one media article that addressed the causes of the london riots (which in my opinion were far more class-based than the Student protests) but I did read of "thugs" "arson" and "gangs".

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm skeptical of the idea that peaceful protests are somehow more effective at encouraging change than other actions (not to say that "other actions" are more effective either). Non-violent actions tend to simply create mediators of conflict who strike some sort of deal with the state that changes basically nothing, except perhaps some superficial window dressing. Take what was perhaps one of the more dramatic instances of a debate involving advocates for violence vs advocates for non-violence: Italy in the 70's. The advocates for calm and order basically suffocated any truly radical alternative during that time period.

And actually, if this post was created back in 2009 or something, I'd say the entire discussion was irrelevant because we're nowhere near 1970's Italy. But I feel that these discussion vis-a-vis tactics are of more importance now that there is a more volatile situation in many parts of the world.

[black magick hustla]

i don't want to sound like one of the neutered "community organizer" weiners but i don't think the matter is as simplistic as claiming that the state and the media will fuck over "peaceful" protests so militant "violence" is the solution. i mean, there is a reason why the state infiltrates movements with agent provocateurs so that anarcho dumbshits get rabble roused into doing some stupid shit. the agent provocateur bit is well documented - read about the green scare for something that feels a bit more recent. the media is not black magic, it is a very complicated institution that is not boundless in limits, especially in western, liberal democracies. the state can't just unleash boundless violence on protestors or imprison who ever they want, there is all sorts of politics and aspects of public opinion it has to take into account.

i don't believe in the idea that if protestors are "peaceful" they will gain public opinion either. again, this is very simplistic. however, i don't think the criticism coming from that side is completely unfounded either. a lot of the rioting and "blac bloc" thing is extremely alienating by the simple fact that it is very voluntaristic and pretty much the product of the activist ghetto.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I like Black Bloc, but they should think more about who they're attacking.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think you underestimate the contol the media has over people. Obviously the student protests were big news and largely non-violent but look at the violent london-riots and the impact the media had then? I read not one media article that addressed the causes of the london riots (which in my opinion were far more class-based than the Student protests) but I did read of "thugs" "arson" and "gangs".

Just to start with, I don't under-estimate the control the media has over people, I totally agree with you, if you're saying that propaganda has a huge ability to influence and even control people.

But I don't get your logic, which seems to be thus: the greater the power the media has, the more we have to make ourselves appear, to some extent, media-friendly. Extrapolated, this reads as: the more repressive an organ of capital/the state is, the greater we have to bend ourselves to work around/within it. Whilst i'm obviously being crude here, I believe this is the basic divide within the argument: do we look at the control the media has over peoples' opinions on a wealth of issues and change our public behaviour to appease that, or do we actually reject their faux-moralism about 'thugs', 'gangs' and 'arson' and make sure that we are sending out an effective enough, parallel propaganda? As I stated initially, violence against the worker is a fair enough action to deplore (perhaps we should be a bit more explicit and also include violence against the possessions [and property?] of a worker), but I don't see why, as angry, politically conscious Socialists we should refrain from expressing our will in the most explicit way. After all, angry, politically conscious Capitalists are most certainly allowed to express their will in the most explicit way and get away with it (countryside alliance and their shitty behaviour), so why shouldn't we expose this duality?

Rather than pandering to the morality of a media that has been shown to be near-absolutely corrupt and universally hated in this country, we should be on the offensive, creating our own versions of what is acceptable and what is not. In my eyes, justifiable anger is certainly acceptable.

[Ele'ill]

i don't think the matter is as simplistic as claiming that the state and the media will fuck over "peaceful" protests so militant "violence" is the solution.

I think the strict adherence to pacifism is what's being argued against in this thread although I agree with you. I think various actions can compliment each other and it's what diversity of tactics is all about. I'm certainly not going to tell someone who's uncomfortable with certain tactics to 'pick up the hammer and do it like this or else we're all going to fail.'



i mean, there is a reason why the state infiltrates movements with agent provocateurs so that anarcho dumbshits get rabble roused into doing some stupid shit.

It's so the state has full control of the situation through the entire process and also so it has the ability to 'easily arrest' although this is secondary as we see the feds infiltrate any left dissident group militant or peaceful and make raids and arrests.


the media is not black magic, it is a very complicated institution that is not boundless in limits, especially in western, liberal democracies. the state can't just unleash boundless violence on protestors or imprison who ever they want, there is all sorts of politics and aspects of public opinion it has to take into account.

The state can unleash enough violence to stop movements and get away with it because ultimately the media and the government/state have the same interests.


i don't believe in the idea that if protestors are "peaceful" they will gain public opinion either. again, this is very simplistic. however, i don't think the criticism coming from that side is completely unfounded either. a lot of the rioting and "blac bloc" thing is extremely alienating by the simple fact that it is very voluntaristic and pretty much the product of the activist ghetto.

I find black bloc tactics and other militant affinity group oriented tactics to be the opposite of alienating because there's no way to sign up even if you wanted to really really bad, there's no real list of prerequisites it's total creativity. You see the actions, you think about what you and your friends or you and your partner can do and you go out and you do it. In areas where militant affinity group actions occur a lot you'll see people picking it up on their own. Pretty sure the unpermitted march here on may day was made up of almost entirely recently radicalized occupy people (quite a few who made attempts engage in a bloc tactic etc..)

[Ele'ill]

I'm old enough to remember Kent state and what happened afterwards with almost all colleges on strikes, it was a turning point, which means many lives were saved eventually, 3 million dead Vietnameses, you think that's not enough...

So what's your position on the ILWU actions in Longview, WA?

[pastradamus]

Just to start with, I don't under-estimate the control the media has over people, I totally agree with you, if you're saying that propaganda has a huge ability to influence and even control people.

But I don't get your logic, which seems to be thus: the greater the power the media has, the more we have to make ourselves appear, to some extent, media-friendly.

Im not saying that at all. What im highlighting is the fact that the organised media (which is all in cohoots) can easily sway people these days in an almost 1984 manner. My original point before I addressed your patricular post was that I've witnessed the blac blocs ruin otherwise peaceful protests in the past and thus given the media a dogleg to chew on. Which in turn, turned public opinion against the protesters. Im not suggesting that we make ourselves media-friendly, but there is an appropriate place for blac blocing. Greece for instance was an episode that recieved massive coverage for its protests be for some reason the media largely presented this in a non-biased way, at least outside Greece. Its elements like this that must be studied.



Extrapolated, this reads as: the more repressive an organ of capital/the state is, the greater we have to bend ourselves to work around/within it. Whilst i'm obviously being crude here, I believe this is the basic divide within the argument: do we look at the control the media has over peoples' opinions on a wealth of issues and change our public behaviour to appease that, or do we actually reject their faux-moralism about 'thugs', 'gangs' and 'arson' and make sure that we are sending out an effective enough, parallel propaganda?

A decent question comrade. Obviously I dont believe in bending around the media but most people (unlike ourselves obviously) can see them for what they are, for want of a better term. Whereas the vast majority of non-politicised working-class people seem to simply take their word for it. I remember watching the student protests actually, I remember seeing a young, blonde man throw that "infamous" fire extuinguisher from that building down upon the police cordon - which missed one officer narrowly. Sky news then began to persue this person and he has since been arrested. People began sending in emails to Sky saying things like "well done for grabbing that scumbag" and "shame on him". Whereas I watched this and said to myself "sky have clearly followed up a piece of news with arrest...not even trying to hide their true colours anymore". To this day I cannot even bear Kay Burleys voice.


As I stated initially, violence against the worker is a fair enough action to deplore (perhaps we should be a bit more explicit and also include violence against the possessions [and property?] of a worker), but I don't see why, as angry, politically conscious Socialists we should refrain from expressing our will in the most explicit way. After all, angry, politically conscious Capitalists are most certainly allowed to express their will in the most explicit way and get away with it (countryside alliance and their shitty behaviour), so why shouldn't we expose this duality?


Violence against the possession of the worker usually comes in the form of a County Sheriff or City Sheriff if you want my honest opinion. A man or woman that can no longer afford their possesions and have them repossesed under threat of violence or prison is deplorable in my opinion and should be met with force. I agree with your statement and I like your opinion here sir.


Rather than pandering to the morality of a media that has been shown to be near-absolutely corrupt and universally hated in this country, we should be on the offensive, creating our own versions of what is acceptable and what is not. In my eyes, justifiable anger is certainly acceptable.

Agreed. I am simply giving a thought on how to convert/if not destroy this mechanism that they seem to hold over the working class.

BTW, Bloody good post and food for thought.

[Rocky Rococo]

Strategy and tactics are two different things. Black bloc and its actions cannot be a strategy. They can be a viable tactic, in the proper tactical situation. I realize BB is mostly 18-year-olds looking to just fuck shit up though, so even to try to get any effort to understand how to recognize the proper tactical situation and effective execution in those situations would be a waste of time, energy and breath.

As far as "direct action" is concerned, the most real, most effective forms of direct action usually involve no violence or destruction at all, at least on the part of the protesters. Organizing a run on a bank would do that bank and the banking system much much greater damage than smashing a couple bank windows. But it would take long-term hard work and actual outreach to *shudder* actual working people to make it work.

There's no Slacker Route to Revolution.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Im not saying that at all. What im highlighting is the fact that the organised media (which is all in cohoots) can easily sway people these days in an almost 1984 manner. My original point before I addressed your patricular post was that I've witnessed the blac blocs ruin otherwise peaceful protests in the past and thus given the media a dogleg to chew on. Which in turn, turned public opinion against the protesters. Im not suggesting that we make ourselves media-friendly, but there is an appropriate place for blac blocing. Greece for instance was an episode that recieved massive coverage for its protests be for some reason the media largely presented this in a non-biased way, at least outside Greece. Its elements like this that must be studied.



A decent question comrade. Obviously I dont believe in bending around the media but most people (unlike ourselves obviously) can see them for what they are, for want of a better term. Whereas the vast majority of non-politicised working-class people seem to simply take their word for it. I remember watching the student protests actually, I remember seeing a young, blonde man throw that "infamous" fire extuinguisher from that building down upon the police cordon - which missed one officer narrowly. Sky news then began to persue this person and he has since been arrested. People began sending in emails to Sky saying things like "well done for grabbing that scumbag" and "shame on him". Whereas I watched this and said to myself "sky have clearly followed up a piece of news with arrest...not even trying to hide their true colours anymore". To this day I cannot even bear Kay Burleys voice.



Violence against the possession of the worker usually comes in the form of a County Sheriff or City Sheriff if you want my honest opinion. A man or woman that can no longer afford their possesions and have them repossesed under threat of violence or prison is deplorable in my opinion and should be met with force. I agree with your statement and I like your opinion here sir.



Agreed. I am simply giving a thought on how to convert/if not destroy this mechanism that they seem to hold over the working class.

BTW, Bloody good post and food for thought.

I still do not know how to do multiple quotes (if someone could give me a step-by-step guide that'd be great, so i'm gonna separate my responses to your individual paragraphs by numbers (sorry this is pretty annoying and clunky).

1. I'd probably agree with you, in that black blocing in certain situations does come across as ridiculous in economic struggles, especially when it does seem as though the tactic is utilised by people are aren't actually represented by the march. I.e. a group black blocing a defensive economic struggle over teachers' pay and conditions, for example (if the march/protest is a purely economic one and not a political one). However, having said this, there are also two counter-points to make:

a) It's also the case that the political struggle grows out of the economic and the economic struggle out of the political (Luxemburg, The Mass Strike), so for instance at the student protests I saw no problem with the tactics employed on the day, as there was wide enough support and a great enough anger that the economic struggle spontaneously (yep, spontaneity!) became a political one, as anger grew on the day and the mood changed to one of defiance and belief, as opposed to a somewhat resigned defensive struggle.

b) There is nothing wrong with non-peaceful tactics being utilised on economic struggles, if those who are using such tactics are those whose livelihoods are directly affected by the outcome of that particular dispute. The most famous recent example in the UK would be the sparks' demo in London a few months ago.

2. To be fair, I don't think that an idiot throwing a fire extinguisher off a roof has anything whatsoever to do with black blocing or any tactic of direct action. It was just stupidity but yes, Sky News would jump on it. Wasn't it George Galloway who called Kay Burley an annoying ginger piece of sperm or something? Either way, can't stand her or any of the ridiculously biased presenters on there, agreed!

3. Agree gladly.

4. Disagree on the convert bit. I'm sure that, at a point when class struggle becomes so heightened, the working class will not be listening to Sky News for daily updates on how the latest protests go. I'm sure Greeks don't tune in to Sky or Fox News to check the latest unemployment data! This is what I mean about forming effective parallel institutions. I'm not talking about the alternative culture that people like DNZ are obsessed with, but, unified, accessible, informative and relevant channels of news updates, radio broadcasts, political propaganda and general information on events that we obviously do not receive from the likes of Sky News and BBC News. The summer riots in the UK were a great example of this: the 'left' was too busy arguing amongst itself about the nature of the riots, who has leadership, should we participate/condemn/condone to actually get it out there what the causes of the riots were. I for one did not approve of much of the damage to workers' possessions that occurred (knowing that it was not based on conscious class struggle, but un-conscious, opportunistic struggle if that makes sense, though there was an obvious and undeniable element of class involved, seeing as it was the working and non-working poor rising up), but still thought that it was worth trying to explain to people, in a non-emotional way, that the riots were a by-product of the society that we have created, especially from the 1980s onwards. Sadly, people on the left especially seemed to become emotional and thus torn between 100% support for rioting as some sort of spontaneous (an example perhaps of false-conscious spontaneity!) working class uprising, or 100% condemnation of the act of destroying the possessions of other workers, lawlessness etc.

And cheers, not such a bad reply yourself!:cool:

[Ele'ill]

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/18599070/the-men-in-black-with-a-violent-agenda

ahaha fox13



TAMPA (FOX 13) -
They're not Al-Qaeda, but they are a type of home-grown terror group. The FBI describes the Black Bloc as individuals intent on using violence to their express their extreme ideological views.

The Black Bloc tactics include street fighting, vandalism and rioting. Private investigator Bill Warner, who researches organized violence, says Black Bloc members are self-proclaimed anarchists.

He says they use the Occupy Movement as a front, but have their own violent agenda. They dress in black from head to toe, carry a black flag, and create chaos when ever they can.

Members conceal their identity, but they don't hide their disdain for capitalism and law enforcement.

"Tampa RNC is the biggest stage this year. These radicals, that's what they like, that's what they need, they like the publicity. But they are going to do bad things to get the publicity," Warner said.

Just a few weeks ago, five Black Bloc anarchists were arrested for trying to blow up a bridge in Cleveland. The FBI foiled the plot by embedding under cover agents in the group.

Investigators say the men also planned to target the NATO Summit in Chicago and the RNC in Tampa.

On Saturday, during the NATO Summit, Chicago police arrested three more Black Bloc members.

Officers infiltrated the group and say they discovered plans to burn down buildings with Molotov cocktails.

Tampa Assistant Police Chief John Bennett, who was at the NATO Summit said to expect the same covert stings during the RNC.

"That's part of our responsibility, and we will be taking the same measures of prevention on our end," Bennett said.

Now with the RNC just months away, what could we expect from this dangerous, radical group?

Warner says nothing good.

"Tampa RNC is going to be a big problem, you're forewarned. They already did it in Chicago, they already did it in Cleveland. They're coming here for the bigger stage," Warner said.

Bill Warner is a self-proclaimed private investigator and fox13 is a self proclaimed news station. What the fuck does that even mean, 'self proclaimed'

[bcbm]

What the fuck does that even mean, 'self proclaimed'


that the people involved describe themselves this way and that the news outlet or whomever is not using it as a slur, basically.

[black magick hustla]

Just a few weeks ago, five Black Bloc anarchists were arrested for trying to blow up a bridge in Cleveland. The FBI foiled the plot by embedding under cover agents in the group.

lol what

[Ele'ill]

that the people involved describe themselves this way and that the news outlet or whomever is not using it as a slur, basically.

I dunno it sounds intentionally over narrated when they say it sometimes

[wunks]

I think the "oh, it'll scare away the working class" objections are bullshit. the working classes view on radical politics will not widely be altered by property damage. if it is, then class consciousness obviously isn't very high.

but at the same time, while I don't really view it as reactionary or anything, I still think it's stupid. it's just a bunch of activists grouping together to cause a ruckus downtown for a relatively short period of time. it's not standing up to the capitalists, its just kind of annoying them with easily affordable window repair and leaving some leftists feeling accomplished.


who says they are trying to win them over? and it seems to be more successful than trying to bore them to death as most pro-revolutionaries do.working class people are not as ADHD as you are making them out to be...

[Skyhilist]

The only problem that I have with Black Bloc is that they smash random cars and then claim that their targets are carefully planned. The owners of those cars could've been future supporters... not anymore. Plus when the ordinary person sees something like that, they don't perceive it as careful chosen targets, they just see at as people who like smashing shit. Other than the smashing in random ordinary cars though, I don't see anything wrong with Black Bloc tactics.

[Ele'ill]

lol what



so the FBI almost blew up a bridge in Cleveland

[wunks]

I like the way that article presents "black bloc anarchist" as a political ideology. you're not a black bloc anarchist if you're not actively black blocing...

[bcbm]

working class people are not as ADHD as you are making them out to be...

yes they are.

[Tim Finnegan]

The FBI describes the Black Bloc as individuals intent on using violence to their express their extreme ideological views.
It's interesting how much of a dirty word "ideology" has become: when you hit a cop, it's ideology, but when a cop hits you, it's just common sense. The marvellous logic of oppression, eh?