Bristol Anarchists sabotage railway signal-lines.

[NoPasaran1936]

The means for this struggle are always close at hand. On the morning of May 22nd we struck two points on the railway routes into Bristol, on the outer sides of Patchway (northern) and Parson Street (southern) stations. By lifting the concrete slabs running alongside the tracks and burning out the signalling cables found in the trench underneath, before carriges came on the line. We chose specifically chose these places so that employees of the Ministry of Defence, as well as military industry companies Raytheon/Thales/HP/QuinetiQ etc., in the business park near Filton Abbey Wood station, and the corportate hub of Bristol, near the Temple Meads station, were amongst the affected. Normal services weren't restored until the evening.

The potential spread of such blockages in general poses a significant problem for the flow of commodites and for making sure that labour exploitation arrives on time, key concerns for transnational capitalism.

Such actions are a time-honoured method of disturbing the 'social peace' myth: from similar sabotages in France; cash courier vehicles getting destroyed in Crete; the night-time smashing of train station ticket machines in Austrailia; resistance to highway developments eating even further into wild landscapes (such as Khimki forest in Russia) whilst displacing animals and people who are still refusing to assimilate into industrial civilisation (such as Bolivia's TIPNIS project in one of the most biodiverse regions in the world); to the iconic seizure and arson of the city bus in London last August. Not to mention our comrades of FAI/Fires on the Horizon, in Athens, and FAI/Individuals Conspiring for the Destruction of the Existent, in Curicó, defiant with their barricades...

Everywhere the bosses want us scurrying around their metropolis, like consignments of human flesh in alientating containers on pre-determinated routes, in a frenetic hussle for survival, there is and will continue to be every reason to forcefully intervene in the smooth flow of the daily grind.

In the United Kingdom of clockwork control and domestication, we're some of the 'unpatriotic ones' who find the 2012 Olympics, with the ensuing spectacle of wealth (when so many here struggle to feed themselves and their families), harmful developments and escalating police state, frankly offensive. But no union or movement calls our shots, and we have no inhibition to use guerrilla activity to hurt the national image and paralyze the economy however we can. Because simply, we don't want rich tourists - we want civil war.

Anarchy is unavoidable.
Riot 2012.

"We want civil war" - really? is this really the way to raise class consciousness?

[Tim Cornelis]

These anarchists are so dense.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

'We don't want rich tourists - we want civil war'.

^^Very, very unfortunate there.

[Krano]

England is a complete police state before the olympics already, pretty sure this will be used to justify more authoritarianism.

[Nox]

Wow. This was very close to where I live. VERY close. I had no idea there were other Anarchists in my area...

[Os Cangaceiros]

"We want civil war" - really? is this really the way to raise class consciousness?

*sigh* I've said this many, many times on this website, but the people who did this actions (or the people who burn banks, or shoot executives, or burn Wal-Mart, etc.) are not starting from the same set of assumptions that the "HOW CAN WE AWAKEN THE SLUMBERING WORKING MASSES?" crowd on Revleft does. You can criticize these actions, hell I've criticized these sorts of actions a LOT since I've been posting on this site, but don't pretend like these people are idiots who don't know how to raise "class consciousness", when that's not even their goal.

[Krano]

Wow. This was very close to where I live. VERY close. I had no idea there were other Anarchists in my area...
I don't belive there are any.

[Raúl Duke]

Because simply, we don't want rich tourists - we want civil war.

Perhaps they're being hyperbolic...
or very Crimethinc-ish (kinda, the vibe of the statement has is ...idk)

[Luc]

Perhaps they're being hyperbolic...
or very Crimethinc-ish (kinda, the vibe of the statement has is ...idk)
they said "domestication" maybe theyre primmies

[Magón]

they said "domestication" maybe theyre primmies

I didn't know Primmies went any further than Eugene, Oregon?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Nope, there are Mexican primmies (http://325.nostate.net/?tag=individualists-tending-towards-the-wild-its) for example.

[Magón]

Nope, there are Mexican primmies (http://325.nostate.net/?tag=individualists-tending-towards-the-wild-its) for example.

Well now I've seen everything. What'll they think of next, Primmies in Antarctica?:lol:

[Luc]

Well now I've seen everything. What'll they think of next, Primmies in Antarctica?:lol:

!

brilliant, there is no civilisation! we will skip the re-wilding period and head straight back! :w00t:

[Tim Finnegan]

Stupid as this is, I will admit that I sympathise. In the torrent of obnoxious nationalism surrounding the jubilee and the Olympics - companies tripping over themselves to show how very much they love institutionalised inequality, every supermarket decked out like they're hosting the fucking Orange Lodge, an apparent wave of mass-amnesia as to how many innocent corpses that miserable rag has cheerfully fluttered over- it's understandable that some people would feel the urge to do something, anything, just to spit in the face of the powers that be. Just a pity it was something so non-constructive.

[Susurrus]

First that bridge in America, now this; is the transportation system the new class enemy?

[Comrade Jandar]

"No act of rebellion is useless; no act of rebellion is harmful." - Luigi Galleani

[Os Cangaceiros]

is the transportation system the new class enemy?

Nope, it's the old enemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnac_Nine)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Stupid as this is, I will admit that I sympathise. In the torrent of obnoxious nationalism surrounding the jubilee and the Olympics - companies tripping over themselves to show how very much they love institutionalised inequality, every supermarket decked out like they're hosting the fucking Orange Lodge, an apparent wave of mass-amnesia as to how many innocent corpses that miserable rag has cheerfully fluttered over- it's understandable that some people would feel the urge to do something, anything, just to spit in the face of the powers that be. Just a pity it was something so non-constructive.

It's not the act that should be criticised. In fact, a more organised, nation-wide campaign such as this would certainly not be in line to be criticised.

It's that, whoever put that message out clearly has zero PR skills. Talking of civil war in a developed country is a:
a) a PR own goal, and
b) very disrespectful to countries/people who are/have been involved in a civil war.

Nobody should ever want civil war, it only ends badly. Was doing some research the other day, since the 1980s in the 'bottom billion' countries there have been nearly 200 civil wars in 32 states, 154 ceasfires and 89 peace accords, and only 9 of these ceasefires have been followed by 10 or more years of peace. :mellow:

[The Douche]

ITT:

Lots of people who don't know what the "Global Civil War" is.

If you don't know what a theoretical concept is, you need to investigate it before you condemn it, because you're not even condemning it or attacking it correctly. And if you don't even know that that sort of language "civil war" implies a specific theoretical background (Tiqqun in this case), then it only demonstrates your own ignorance.

And aside from the issue of posters on revleft not knowing the theory they're critiquing, the transportation system is, without a doubt, a valid target in the disruption of capital. I don't even see how this can be argued. The goal is to disrupt capital, and if workers don't show up for work, capital has been disrupted.

[Serge's Fist]

It's like Wolfie Smith has come back and decided to live in Bristol. The IAF is either a bunch of inept idiots or just simply state assets. There is nothing to support in their actions or statement as it is clearly anti-working class and elitist.

[Bronco]

ITT:

Lots of people who don't know what the "Global Civil War" is.

If you don't know what a theoretical concept is, you need to investigate it before you condemn it, because you're not even condemning it or attacking it correctly. And if you don't even know that that sort of language "civil war" implies a specific theoretical background (Tiqqun in this case), then it only demonstrates your own ignorance.

And aside from the issue of posters on revleft not knowing the theory they're critiquing, the transportation system is, without a doubt, a valid target in the disruption of capital. I don't even see how this can be argued. The goal is to disrupt capital, and if workers don't show up for work, capital has been disrupted.

Well yeah I admit I don't really know about Tiqqun and their Civil War theory, it seems ridiculously complicated to me. But when these Anarchists release a statement where the only mention of civil war is at the very end and comes with no accompanying explanation are most people gonna think they mean; civil war in the generally understood sense of a war between opposing forces in one country, or are they expected to immediately understand it's instead a reference to some esoteric philosophical theory that most people have never heard of

[bricolage]

the rhetoric of civil war isn't really that new, tiqqun might be saying it now but lenin was talking about turning imperialist wars into civil wars a long time ago. actually the language in this statement doesn't seem as alienating as most insurrectionists, which normally comes out like this (http://www.objectivechance.com/automatic_insurrection), so I guess that's saying something.

it's interesting they mention 'similar sabotages in France' because I was under the impression all that came from that was a bunch of people getting arrested, not really much to aim for. also it seems odd mentioning the olympics in regards to something happening in bristol, I mean has it even had any effect on anything there?

the whole thing's pretty stupid but I'm not gonna go screaming to the heavens about it.

[The Douche]

Well yeah I admit I don't really know about Tiqqun and their Civil War theory, it seems ridiculously complicated to me. But when these Anarchists release a statement where the only mention of civil war is at the very end and comes with no accompanying explanation are most people gonna think they mean; civil war in the generally understood sense of a war between opposing forces in one country, or are they expected to immediately understand it's instead a reference to some esoteric philosophical theory that most people have never heard of

1) This communique was released to the radical community.

2) Tiqqun uses the term civil war because the engagement plays out between a variety of actors, inside of capital, and not always state entities. So it is probably more accurate to use the term civil war, even though I still usually prefer the term social war.



I don't (and I bet the people who released this as well) expect the general public to even see this statement, and I don't think its to much to ask, that people who consider themselves to be radicals, be familiar with radical theory, in at least a passing way. I'm not, and have never been a leninist, but I understand the fundamentals of leninism, and if there ever was a new, exciting idea or set of ideas coming up in the leninist millieu I ould certainly familiarize myself with them.



But really, misunderstandings of civil war aside, this is still a reasonable action, if you're really interested in disrupting capital, and not just playing at political theatre.

[Tim Finnegan]

It's not the act that should be criticised. In fact, a more organised, nation-wide campaign such as this would certainly not be in line to be criticised.

It's that, whoever put that message out clearly has zero PR skills. Talking of civil war in a developed country is a:
a) a PR own goal, and
b) very disrespectful to countries/people who are/have been involved in a civil war.

Nobody should ever want civil war, it only ends badly. Was doing some research the other day, since the 1980s in the 'bottom billion' countries there have been nearly 200 civil wars in 32 states, 154 ceasfires and 89 peace accords, and only 9 of these ceasefires have been followed by 10 or more years of peace. :mellow:
To be honest, even though I'm equally unfamiliar with this apparent theory of "global civil war", I didn't take it as a literal call for The Troubles 2: Insurrectionary Boogaloo, but rather as something more or less equivalent to "class war", just without an explicit class dimension (which I'm given to understand some insurrectionary anarchists are a bit wary of because of the Marxian overtones). It's like how some people describe the Miners' Strike as a "civil war"- they don't literally mean that Scargill was commanding a guerilla army, they just mean that it was an episode of heightened social conflict. Maybe that would be lost on the public at large, but as Cmoney observed, this was released to a radical network rather than the general public, so I would tend to think of it as a merely inelegant phrasing, rather than outright stupid.

[NoPasaran1936]

*sigh* I've said this many, many times on this website, but the people who did this actions (or the people who burn banks, or shoot executives, or burn Wal-Mart, etc.) are not starting from the same set of assumptions that the "HOW CAN WE AWAKEN THE SLUMBERING WORKING MASSES?" crowd on Revleft does. You can criticize these actions, hell I've criticized these sorts of actions a LOT since I've been posting on this site, but don't pretend like these people are idiots who don't know how to raise "class consciousness", when that's not even their goal.

The disruption was incredibly minor. Whilst I understand that the MoD et al use this; there's probably plenty of other ways in disrupting capital, and logistics that probably were easier than this.

What about "workfare" participants? You know, companies using forced labour to maximise their profits. Damaging property of the likes of Tesco's or wherever would more than likely be easier and more worthwhile than a train track.

[Serge's Fist]

What about "workfare" participants? You know, companies using forced labour to maximise their profits. Damaging property of the likes of Tesco's or wherever would more than likely be easier and more worthwhile than a train track.

It would do far more harm than good, smashing up a Tesco's on a cold Morning in Bristol is probably a good way of undermining the widespread opposition to workfare and play into the hands of the state.

[Bronco]

Actually Tesco has been targeted by Bristolian's as well (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/22/bristol-riot-police-injured)

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

:rolleyes:

I find it odd that some here, on a discussion board for revolutionary leftist politics will inherently criticise any and all working class action against capital as if sitting on the ass and whining from the armchair is vastly more effective and constructive and "raises class consciousness." It's laughable really. What the fuck has happened to the Left?

[Ravachol]

Anyone who whines about disruption of infrastructure on here should take a look at every single student protest, urban prole riot or strike action in the past few years. All of them involved blocking the urban arteries of crossroads, ports and railways. Capital circulates through the commodity form (and through labour). Commodities and labour circulate through the infrastructure. This is something everybody feels instinctively when they go out and block a junction or train station or whatever and that's fucking great.

Where I live, the main obstacle to efficient infrastructure-aided circulation is the prime railway company itself :rolleyes:

And yes, it's bad "PR-wise" but as c-money said that's not their goal (something we can agree or disagree with) but in all honesty who cares.

[Ravachol]

It would do far more harm than good, smashing up a Tesco's on a cold Morning in Bristol is probably a good way of undermining the widespread opposition to workfare and play into the hands of the state.

No it's not. You know what's playing into the hands of the state? Avoiding each and every action that rubs them the wrong way, fearing it might 'justify' repression (as if that needs justification, just ask each goody-two-shoe hippy at your random occupy encampment). Throwing out an entire range of tactics simply because the state marks them as 'unacceptable', THAT is literally playing into the hands of the state by guiding your action through their channels only.

[Bronco]

Maybe I'm just being stupid here but what makes this such a more effective and justified action than those Anarchists who supposedly attempted to blow up a bridge? Because nobody thought the latter was a good idea

[The Douche]

Maybe I'm just being stupid here but what makes this such a more effective and justified action than those Anarchists who supposedly attempted to blow up a bridge? Because nobody thought the latter was a good idea

I dunno if I'd say I think its a good idea, but I'm not particularly opposed to it.

I don't think the actions are all that different in their intent, my hangups with the destruction of the bridge mainly focus around the danger it presents to other people.


The destruction/sabotage of infrastructure, especially tansportation like bridges and rail lines, is a pretty integral part of insurgent combat.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Maybe I'm just being stupid here but what makes this such a more effective and justified action than those Anarchists who supposedly attempted to blow up a bridge? Because nobody thought the latter was a good idea

The difference would be a federal investigation, an informant and them being possible government patsies. Oh and unlike in the UK, the US has detainment camps for political enemies or "domestic terrorists." Past that I have no real criticisms. Sabotage has been a tactic used by the working class for centuries.

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm finding myself on the fence about this. Ravachol and Cmoney are making a pretty solid defence in favour of this action, but I'm still wary of actions that while inarguably anti-capitalist don't appear to have anything much to do with the working class. Without hauling out the scare-word "voluntarism", I'm not sure how much good comes form an action that does not on the surface seem to contribute to any sort of class-recomposition. Is that something that either of you (or anyone else) would be able to discuss in a bit more detail?

[Serge's Fist]

Anyone who whines about disruption of infrastructure on here should take a look at every single student protest, urban prole riot or strike action in the past few years. All of them involved blocking the urban arteries of crossroads, ports and railways. Capital circulates through the commodity form (and through labour). Commodities and labour circulate through the infrastructure. This is something everybody feels instinctively when they go out and block a junction or train station or whatever and that's fucking great.

You miss the key difference that the actions you list can be considered mass actions taken by sections of the working class. A couple of people wrecking a bit of railway is not. One approach is working class action the other is elitist stupidity.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

You miss the key difference that the actions you list can be considered mass actions taken by sections of the working class. A couple of people wrecking a bit of railway is not. One approach is working class action the other is elitist stupidity.

Explain the alleged "elitism," in the Bristol Anarchists action? The charge seems fairly absurd.

[Serge's Fist]

Explain the alleged "elitism," in the Bristol Anarchists action? The charge seems fairly absurd.

It is a minority action that treats the working class as a subject to pulled into action by an enlightened few taking spectacular acts. The acts these kind of groups take exclude the working class from taking part. There is a very good Anarchist response to groups like the IAF here: http://libcom.org/library/you-cant-blow-up-social-relationship

[The Douche]

I'm finding myself on the fence about this. Ravachol and Cmoney are making a pretty solid defence in favour of this action, but I'm still wary of actions that while inarguably anti-capitalist don't appear to have anything much to do with the working class. Without hauling out the scare-word "voluntarism", I'm not sure how much good comes form an action that does not on the surface seem to contribute to any sort of class-recomposition. Is that something that either of you (or anyone else) would be able to discuss in a bit more detail?

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're getting at? Your reservations for actions like this stem from a concern about how such actions can relate to a broader struggle, or become more generalized?

I think that attack, in general, doesn't really contribute to class-recomposition (if by that term, you mean some sort of revival of the class as some sort of movement or at least, semi-coherent body), but at the same time, it doesn't particularly set out with that as a goal.

Certainly acts of this sort are starting to become generalized within the radical millieu. 10 years ago the level of intensity of attack was nowhere near what it is today. If we look around the less formal communist left and the less formal elements of the anarchist movement, we can see a real pushing of the limits. There are a lot more sabotage, and military type operations going on. Even the dialogue has become more militant. And I think that if that generalization continues then it is almost inevitable that it will spread to the class at large. Especially if we start to see more uprisings and insurrection in the west. (Greece, Italy, maybe even Canada)


I think you raise important points regarding voluntarism, and I struggle, myself, with relating some of my ideas regarding action to a communist movement, which doesn't really exist/is very much in its infancy. I firmly believe that communism cannot exist within the framework of mass society, and so I think that we have to tend away from the idea of mass movements, less they replicate mass society (and then make a true rupture with capital impossible). But communism is certainly not possible with the movement of the class. (movement here, to mean, actions and ideas as a body, and not an organized movement)

Its certainly an important discussion, which I have in my head a lot, and it would do me (and others, I'm sure) well to have it.

[wunks]

Riot 2012.it's got my vote!

I don't particularly care about the lefty mumbo jumbo to justify or condemn this. fact is that it didn't do shit so I don't give a shit.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

It is a minority action that treats the working class as a subject to pulled into action by an enlightened few taking spectacular acts. The acts these kind of groups take exclude the working class from taking part. There is a very good Anarchist response to groups like the IAF here: http://libcom.org/library/you-cant-blow-up-social-relationship

Kind of odd that you posted a link of an article against terrorism and propaganda of the deed when that's not what the action that is being discussed is, it's sabotage not terrorism.

Further, I think your entire assessment of the subject is inaccurate and wrong.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

ugh look at these ultra-left losers, they pulled off one act of sabotage and it didn't even cause the global capitalist system to collapse! boooooring. :rolleyes:

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

ugh look at these ultra-left losers, they pulled off one act of sabotage and it didn't even cause the global capitalist system to collapse! boooooring. :rolleyes:

The above is completely idiotic.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

*sigh* I've said this many, many times on this website, but the people who did this actions (or the people who burn banks, or shoot executives, or burn Wal-Mart, etc.) are not starting from the same set of assumptions that the "HOW CAN WE AWAKEN THE SLUMBERING WORKING MASSES?" crowd on Revleft does. You can criticize these actions, hell I've criticized these sorts of actions a LOT since I've been posting on this site, but don't pretend like these people are idiots who don't know how to raise "class consciousness", when that's not even their goal.
Right, it isn't their aim. But what is their aim? If it's revolution, they've got their heads pretty far up their asses. Any moderately decent review of history of the past 150 years shows that sabotage and terrorism do not lead to revolution. I don't oppose these tactics on principle, it is simply that they do not work, and usually boomerang to cause more harm than good. So BFD, they disrupted business for a day. If it was striking workers doing it, that would be different.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The above is completely idiotic.

huh?


Right, it isn't their aim. But what is their aim? If it's revolution, they've got their heads pretty far up their asses. Any moderately decent review of history of the past 150 years shows that sabotage and terrorism do not lead to revolution. I don't oppose these tactics on principle, it is simply that they do not work, and usually boomerang to cause more harm than good. So BFD, they disrupted business for a day. If it was striking workers doing it, that would be different.

Maybe an act of sabotage is just an act of sabotage and not necessarily a call to take to the streets.

[Serge's Fist]

Kind of odd that you posted a link of an article against terrorism and propaganda of the deed when that's not what the action that is being discussed is, it's sabotage not terrorism.

Further, I think your entire assessment of the subject is inaccurate and wrong.

This group in Bristol share the name of a group in Italy that sends parcel bombs and kneecaps scientists. The difference between our home grown IAF and their Italian counterparts is that ours are more like Wolfie Smith than an "urban guerilla". This kind of minority action is useless under current conditions it is alienating and just the work of a satisfied smug minority of people with delusions of grandeur.

They of course could just be state assets used to excuse increasing police powers during the Jubilee and Olympics.

[The Douche]

This group in Bristol share the name of a group in Italy that sends parcel bombs and kneecaps scientists. The difference between our home grown IAF and their Italian counterparts is that ours are more like Wolfie Smith than an "urban guerilla". This kind of minority action is useless under current conditions it is alienating and just the work of a satisfied smug minority of people with delusions of grandeur.

Its alienating? How can it become less so? How can it become generalized, or at least, more generalized? Certainly not by not occurring?! If these things don't happen, they won't happen.

And you have absolutely no idea whether these individuals have "delusions of granduer". You're an absolute fool if you think the IAF thinks they are, or seek to be, the vanguard inspiring the class to action. The fact that you would even suggest it displays such a profound lack of background knowledge on the issue/ideologies/groups involved that you should be ashamed.


They of course could just be state assets used to excuse increasing police powers during the Jubilee and Olympics

Fuck your bad-jacketing.


I would like to include this quote, from Armed Joy, written during the Italian unrest in the 70s:


When we say the time is not ripe for an armed attack on the state we are pushing open the doors of the mental asylum for the comrades who are carrying out such attacks; when we say it is not the time for revolution we are tightening the cords of the straight jacket; when we say these actions are objectively a provocation we don the white coats of the tortuerers.

[Serge's Fist]

Its alienating? How can it become less so? How can it become generalized, or at least, more generalized? Certainly not by not occurring?! If these things don't happen, they won't happen.

Such forms of action are alienating because they leave the working class as a spectator and have no basis in the struggles of the class.


And you have absolutely no idea whether these individuals have "delusions of granduer". You're an absolute fool if you think the IAF thinks they are, or seek to be, the vanguard inspiring the class to action. The fact that you would even suggest it displays such a profound lack of background knowledge on the issue/ideologies/groups involved that you should be ashamed.

Well a couple of people burning cables in Bristol and then calling themselves "urban guerillas" taking part in a social civil war is a clear cut case of delusions of grandeur. This kind of action and the ideas that underpin these groups treat the working class as stupid and sheep that need to be prodded into action by an enlightened minority. It has never and will never work.

[Fawkes]

The above is completely idiotic.

sarcasm buddy



Such forms of action are alienating because they leave the working class as a spectator and have no basis in the struggles of the class.


Apparently you missed everything past the first sentence:

How can it become less so? How can it become generalized, or at least, more generalized? Certainly not by not occurring?! If these things don't happen, they won't happen.

[Prometeo liberado]

Even these Anarchist seems to "get it" at some level. They are not delusional in thinking that this is the revolutionary spark that will rush in a revolution. They are arguably far more aware and disciplined in thought and action than most action oriented left organizations today. They are succinct in explaining their actions and the reasoning why, and do so with out the usual "We are the voice of the masses" nonsense. Shit, Stalin pulled of far more outrageous sabotage than this! Are we really arguing against Anarchist walking the walk here? Arguing against physical response to the machines of capital. Cmoney is correct, maybe we dont understand the dynamics involved here.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Right, it isn't their aim. But what is their aim?

I don't know, probably something like communism and total freedom or something?

The thing is that the ideology common to this sort of broad affinity group(FAI/IRF), at least from what I've managed to discern, is kind of rooted in the ideology of "Conspiracy of Cells of Fire" in Greece, although there have been similar groups in the past. My understanding is that this ideology allows for more individual initiative than, say, anarcho-syndicalism.

From Wikipedia:



Two SPF proclamations published in athens.indymedia.org on May 19, 2010, explained that SPF represented a "third pole" of anarchist thought in Greece, anarcho-individualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism), contrasting it with social anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism) and insurrectionary anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrectionary_anarchism).[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_of_Fire_Nuclei#cite_note-21) SPF proclamations sent to athens.indymedia.org following each operation quote from T.S. Eliot or Dylan Thomas to convey their authors' alienation and their hostility to society as a web of repressive relations. SPF rejects class struggle and other collective categories, viewing the war against the state and its institutions as a battle for individual self-actualization. The SPF does, however, express solidarity with imprisoned anarchists in Greece and other countries. Uniquely among Greek armed groups, the SPF claims to use the word "terrorist" in a favorable light. Some of its writers refer to themselves as nihilists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism).

Because these proclamations are inconsistent with ideological positions traditionally found within anarchism, namely communitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism) and solidarity with the working classes, some anarchists[who? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] do not believe the SPF should be considered an anarchist organization. However, in their published text "The Sun Still Rises",[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] they put forward a redefinition of the concept of revolutionary "organization" as an entity consisting of many groups and individuals of various backgrounds, united through a common critique of capitalist society and a commitment to fight it and to create "immediate freedom" through urban guerrilla tactics.

[NoPasaran1936]

It would do far more harm than good, smashing up a Tesco's on a cold Morning in Bristol is probably a good way of undermining the widespread opposition to workfare and play into the hands of the state.
I don't really see how it would play into the hands of the state. What's more important, disrupting the train routes, or businesses that continue to use forced labour which is directly against that person's freedom and individual liberty?

Actually Tesco has been targeted by Bristolian's as well (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/22/bristol-riot-police-injured)

Ah, I remember this now. My mistake.

I'd like to clarify that I'm not entirely against insurrectionism. It depends on the target for me, if this evolves into bigger targets then perhaps I'll withdraw me being sceptical. The one thing I'd like clarify is that people seem to be assuming I'm entirely against this attack; I criticised the wording of the message sent to indymedia, it could have been worded better.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Wow. This was very close to where I live. VERY close. I had no idea there were other Anarchists in my area...If you could call these guys "anarchists".

I've been involved in shutting down bridges and the Post of Oakland. We did it with full cooperation of port workers and weeks of outreach and networking with union rank and file. It was in the context of a larger movement and with a specific target and reason which would rally people to support this action.

Yes infrastructure is important. But "disruption of capital" is not a useful primary goal of working class movements that want to see worker's power and an end to capitalism. WWII disrupted capital, destroyed transportion and infrastructure and how well did that pan out - did workers take over or the people with the most guns (Russia and the US)?

How fucking sad and ironic that people who claim to be anti-authoritarians want a revolution where workers are not consciously involved or leading. It's like Che started reading Crimethink or something. These "anarchists" want a coup (without then taking state power), not working class self-emancipation.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If you could call these guys "anarchists".

I've been involved in shutting down bridges and the Post of Oakland. We did it with full cooperation of port workers and weeks of outreach and networking with union rank and file. It was in the context of a larger movement and with a specific target and reason which would rally people to support this action.

Yes infrastructure is important. But "disruption of capital" is not a useful primary goal of working class movements that want to see worker's power and an end to capitalism. WWII disrupted capital, destroyed transportion and infrastructure and how well did that pan out - did workers take over or the people with the most guns (Russia and the US)?

How fucking sad and ironic that people who claim to be anti-authoritarians want a revolution where workers are not consciously involved or leading. It's like Che started reading Crimethink or something. These "anarchists" want a coup (without then taking state power), not working class self-emancipation.

But the unions are full of shit, why would anarchists want to negotiate with them? Haven't you seen how the unions treat non-union entities in the UK? Look at the IWW example recently! The unions are very organised in the UK, there's very little way of communicating with the rank-and-file, formally, without going through the lines of bureaucracy first. If you're going to engage with the unions, you have to smash their leadership and show the rank-and-file that the unions will never stand up for the real interests of their workers.

I don't think cutting a few cables was a 'revolutionary' act, it was clearly a 'mere' act of sabotage. Granted, I think it was stupid to talk the talk of civil war and anti-tourism, but still, you're skipping so many stages of logical though by saying that this group wants a 'coup'. It really is classic sectarianism on your part, mate.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But the unions are full of shit, why would anarchists want to negotiate with them? Haven't you seen how the unions treat non-union entities in the UK? Look at the IWW example recently! The unions are very organised in the UK, there's very little way of communicating with the rank-and-file, formally, without going through the lines of bureaucracy first. If you're going to engage with the unions, you have to smash their leadership and show the rank-and-file that the unions will never stand up for the real interests of their workers.

I don't think cutting a few cables was a 'revolutionary' act, it was clearly a 'mere' act of sabotage. Granted, I think it was stupid to talk the talk of civil war and anti-tourism, but still, you're skipping so many stages of logical though by saying that this group wants a 'coup'. It really is classic sectarianism on your part, mate.They apparently want to disrupt capitalism but not through the conscious actions of the working class! I'd say that's a coup, not a worker's revolution. If this is what they believe what's the difference between Che leading a small group to topple the government and this strategy of disruption other than not desiring to take power like Che and Fidel.

It's not being sectarian to argue for class rather than individualist struggle. Personally I don't think it will be one sect or even political tendency that will play an organic leading role in worker's taking control of society. I think probably it will be several large groups and traditions during a time of intense and overt class struggle where workers are consciously questioning the idea of who should rule in society, coming to similar conclusions on certain political and tactical questions and forming what could be considered a "vanguard". I think class-oriented anarchists will probably be a big part of that development.

I disagree with syndicalism on various points and I think that it would be impossible to have a pure syndicalist "one big union" but I think many of these groups will play a tremendously positive role in the class struggle through organizing the unorganized and acting as a demonstration against business-unionism specifically and liberal trade-unionis in general through showing in practice how militancy and radical ideas are more effective than negotiation and cooperation. I think part of what you mention in how the trade-unions sabotage the IWW and poach from them etc, sheds light on one of my disagreements with syndicalism - basically that the trade-unions already exist and the problems of these organizations actually have to be confronted by the workers movement, not just some attempt to bypass this issue. For this reason as well as the fact that even conservative union leaders (have been in the past and) will be forced by rank and file militancy to move left and towards militancy (even if only to save their own bureaucratic position) during periods of intense class struggle means that it's possible to try and organize rank and file militants within the existing unions. So if there is an upsurge in workplace struggles and militancy from below I think both radicals and militants within the trade-unions as well as revolutionary-unions and formations will all play roles in that; I'm only skeptical that syndicalism alone would be the vehicle for working class organization. You said we must: "smash their leadership and show the rank-and-file that the unions will never stand up for the real interests of their workers." and while I overall agree with this in the abstract, I disagree with how this point is formulated. "Showing" the rank and file, making arguments with the rank and file are important, but the key I think is not just showing them "the light" but actually trying to help the rank and file stand up for their own interests and fight for themselves. This process is the way in which the bureaucracy would be overcome IMO - not from without, but from below. At any rate, despite some disagreements I think that my politics and something like syndicalism and left-com are basically in the same stream heading the same direction but with different ideas of the best boat to take there.

Some of these ideas of disruption and whatnot, however I don't think are "in the same stream" - they seem to not want to relate to the actual working class as it is and try and help working class self-organization and fight-back but to fight on behalf of some abstract working class. Some of the people involved might be working class and fighting capital, but they are fighting as individual workers, not organizing conscious class fight-back. If I had even a shadow of a doubt that the insurrection-type ideas could achieve working class self-emancipation then I wouldn't care who had them or what sect. As it is I don't care if they call themselves Maoists or insurrectionist-anarchists, it's the tactics and some of the ideas behind it that I have an issue with.

[Ravachol]

You miss the key difference that the actions you list can be considered mass actions taken by sections of the working class. A couple of people wrecking a bit of railway is not. One approach is working class action the other is elitist stupidity.

100 students occupying a classroom and blocking traffic outside is not a 'mass action by a section of the working class' any more than 100 urban guerillas are. How many individuals make a 'mass'? What's the arbitrary quantitative threshold?


It is a minority action that treats the working class as a subject to pulled into action by an enlightened few taking spectacular acts.


Jesus mate are you daft? They do not. They don't wanna enlighten anybody. They simply say oh well we fucked up some infrastructure if you feel the same way about shit you can do it to otherwise, fine as well we'll continue anyway.

I'm not saying this is good, I don't think it matters that much outside of a generalized context of these kind of actions but opposing it to somehow present yourself as 'the good, reasonable, decent anarchists' to the media/state/liberal guilt-trippers makes me wanna puke.

[The Douche]

If you could call these guys "anarchists".

I wouldn't expect this kind of thing from you. Will you be saying the same thing about my friends and comrades in Oakland if they get arrested for sabotage, surely you have anarchist friends and associates, will you question their commitment if they begin to take actions you don't approve of? I think its pretty rotten of you (and the other people who do the same) to abandon fellow radicals when they are most crucially in need of support.


Yes infrastructure is important. But "disruption of capital" is not a useful primary goal of working class movements that want to see worker's power and an end to capitalism. WWII disrupted capital, destroyed transportion and infrastructure and how well did that pan out - did workers take over or the people with the most guns (Russia and the US)?

While certainly, there is importance in engaging with the class and bringing the communist position out into the streets in actions with broad elements of the class, surely you don't deny that one of the objectives of the aforementioned strikes and shutdowns is to do economic damage to the companies and the city? Strikes are as much terrorism as breaking a window or sabotaging a rail line. They are a demonstration of force designed to scare the opponent into submission.

And I resent your comparison of anarchist sabotage to imperialist war. Its out of line.



How fucking sad and ironic that people who claim to be anti-authoritarians want a revolution where workers are not consciously involved or leading. It's like Che started reading Crimethink or something. These "anarchists" want a coup (without then taking state power), not working class self-emancipation.

Bullshit. Reading any of the communiques, analyses, or theoretical documents produced by anarchists regarding armed struggle or sabotage will clearly show the attention given to not viewing themselves as any sort of vanguard or pretensions of acting as leaders.


They apparently want to disrupt capitalism but not through the conscious actions of the working class! I'd say that's a coup, not a worker's revolution.

Disruption =/= a coup, its only disruption. And these actions occur in the context of other struggles, so to imply that these people pay no attention to the class as a body is absurd.

[ComradeOm]

Really? After everything we've seen in the past two centuries, are we really back to small bands/cells of conspirators making petty and isolated acts of defiance? I don't accept that this regression to carbonarism is anarchism

[The Douche]

Really? After everything we've seen in the past two centuries, are we really back to small bands/cells of conspirators making petty and isolated acts of defiance? I don't accept that this regression to carbonarism is anarchism

I don't think you're qualified to tell these people, or anybody else, if they're anarchists or not.

[Jimmie Higgins]

100 students occupying a classroom and blocking traffic outside is not a 'mass action by a section of the working class' any more than 100 urban guerillas are. How many individuals make a 'mass'? What's the arbitrary quantitative threshold?Well it's a collective action connected to a larger movement with specific grievences. It also helps teach workers (or in this case potential workers or workers in training) to cooperate and fight in their common interests through their own actions and experiences. You know the skills necessary for effective class war from our side.

What does individualist action do? It creates specialists that fight in the name of some conception of a passive working class. It produces professional warriors, not a confident and conscious working class ready to fight in its own interests.


Jesus mate are you daft? They do not. They don't wanna enlighten anybody. They simply say oh well we fucked up some infrastructure if you feel the same way about shit you can do it to otherwise, fine as well we'll continue anyway.So if politics don't matter, then Tim McVeigh blowing up a federal building is just as legitimate?


I'm not saying this is good, I don't think it matters that much outside of a generalized context of these kind of actions but opposing it to somehow present yourself as 'the good, reasonable, decent anarchists' to the media/state/liberal guilt-trippers makes me wanna puke.If it's just a case of "shit happens" some people are frustrated and do this because they don't have any other options, then that's one thing but people on this site are justifying for these actions as a kind of strategy. In which case then it's totally legitimate to debate and question the effectivness and usefulness of these kinds of ideas and actions.

As far as appealing to the state though, are you kidding? The establishment LOVES this straw-man bomb-tossing "anarchism" - if they were afraid of the example of this, why would they constantly hype how destructive these acts are, overstate how much disruption this brings, while not reporting the IWW's Starbuck's organizing, Republic Window's and Doors Strikes, all the work Occupy Oakland anarchists have done on opposing foreclosures and so on?

I don't think any radical is arguing that the media are the target recipient (let alone the state) but the larger working class and the more overt class anger out there right now is.

[ComradeOm]

I don't think you're qualified to tell these people, or anybody else, if they're anarchists or not.You're wrong. Don't tell me that I have no right to expect better from those calling themselves 'anarchists'

[Jimmie Higgins]

I wouldn't expect this kind of thing from you. Will you be saying the same thing about my friends and comrades in Oakland if they get arrested for sabotage, surely you have anarchist friends and associates, will you question their commitment if they begin to take actions you don't approve of? I think its pretty rotten of you (and the other people who do the same) to abandon fellow radicals when they are most crucially in need of support.Yeah, if I criticize tactics on a left-wing discussion forum I'm obviously throwing people under the bus - give me a fucking break with this moralist-blackmailing. Anyone who criticizes this is a "liberal pacifist" or "sectarian against all anarchism" or whatever. It shows the extent to which these tactics have become a kind of dogma, an end in of themselves.

I'm not attacking individuals I'm arguing that these tactics are induvidualist not class based like traditional (and the most effective) marxism and anarchism. Stalinists consider themselves Marxists too, but I view their "marxism" with the same skepticism that I view this.


While certainly, there is importance in engaging with the class and bringing the communist position out into the streets in actions with broad elements of the class, surely you don't deny that one of the objectives of the aforementioned strikes and shutdowns is to do economic damage to the companies and the city? Strikes are as much terrorism as breaking a window or sabotaging a rail line. They are a demonstration of force designed to scare the opponent into submission.Economic damage is secondary! The thing about these actions is that workers organize and fight in their own interests. A trade-union boycott might do economic damage but it is much less favorable for working class organization because it's carried out not in the workplace but in the community, it can create community solidarity but probably not help workers develop their own ability to fight effectively.


And I resent your comparison of anarchist sabotage to imperialist war. Its out of line.My point was not a moral comparison - it was that neither strategy seem to have to do anything with worker self-organization. Countries collapse all the time, economies crash too, but this doesn't produce working class consciousness or the ability for workers to replace capitalism.


Bullshit. Reading any of the communiques, analyses, or theoretical documents produced by anarchists regarding armed struggle or sabotage will clearly show the attention given to not viewing themselves as any sort of vanguard or pretensions of acting as leaders.And the rulers of Cuba also claim that everything they do is in the interests of the working class. I don't doubt the sincerity of many people involved - obviously they are putting a lot on the line - but for what? What do these tactics do for the working class - not much more than a power-outage or bridge collapse that could happen anyway.

Collectively shutting down a port is a show of our strength and organization and when it's the workers at the port, it shows their real social power to control production. What does a clandestine group sabotaging a port do?

[Ravachol]

Well it's a collective action connected to a larger movement with specific grievences.


When is a movement a large movement and when is it a small movement? Can you tell me the threshold so I can check next time, so I know I'm not accidently denouncing a large movement for being a small movement!



It also helps teach workers (or in this case potential workers or workers in training) to cooperate and fight in their common interests through their own actions and experiences.


Sure does, clandestine actions don't run counter to that though, on the contrary.



What does individualist action do? It creates specialists that fight in the name of some conception of a passive working class.


Will you shut up about 'fighting in the name of' already? Nobody here claims they do that, except perhaps for the Leninists who go on and on about being 'the vanguard of the masses'.



It produces professional warriors, not a confident and conscious working class ready to fight in its own interests.


Strikes don't necessarily do that either. Workers do clandestine sabotage all the time. If you've ever worked in a large warehouse or call center (which I don't think you have if you only count official, open, party/union-led 'mass actin' as valid) you'd know that most people break shipment boxes, 'accidentily' lose paperwork, disconnect telephones just to get a few minutes off, reduce workload or show informal counter-power. Meanwhile, the official 4-hour token strikes called by the reformist unions are often used to defuse situations of tension more so than contribute to them.

Arguing which tactic is better is giving in to an infantile form over content fetish.

[The Douche]

Anyone who criticizes this is a "liberal pacifist" or "sectarian against all anarchism" or whatever. It shows the extent to which these tactics have become a kind of dogma, an end in of themselves.

I haven't said anything of the sort. You said these people are not anarchists, apparently you believe that if you light something on fire you are not an anarchist?


Economic damage is secondary!

But a goal nonetheless.


The thing about these actions is that workers organize and fight in their own interests.

I know that and understand its importance just as much as you. That has literally nothing to do with what we're talking about. Clandestine actions can exist right alongside generalized revolt. The individuals carrying out these kind of acts are not opposed to the class moving as a body.


And the rulers of Cuba also claim that everything they do is in the interests of the working class.

And thats why your comparison is irrelevant. Because the IAF is not claiming to act for or on behalf of the class.


What do these tactics do for the working class - not much more than a power-outage or bridge collapse that could happen anyway.

They don't do things for the class. Thats not the intent. These actions do however, strike a concrete blow at capital, and they contribute to an overall climate of intensity. The real issue here is that you only believe the escalation of struggle should occur at specific points (no doubt, determined by your organization).


What does a clandestine group sabotaging a port do?

It disrupts the flow of capital, which is a military victory against our enemy. Are you not willing or ready to view our situation as war? Because I certainly do...

[Jimmie Higgins]

I haven't said anything of the sort. You said these people are not anarchists, apparently you believe that if you light something on fire you are not an anarchist?No I believe that modern anarchism is a class and communist movement, but induvidual acts of terror is a petty-bourgeois strategy of individuals who act as individuals because they don't have the potential to collectively control the means of production.


But a goal nonetheless.Means and ends. How does abstract "disruption" help our class prepare to fight in its own interests?

Are you telling me small clandestine cliques can do more disruption than Hurricane Katrina? How did that New Orleans black and poor people's commune work out? Oh it didn't it just lead to the wealthier people arming themselves and shooting black refugees while cops ran roughshod over any survivors they encountered.


I know that and understand its importance just as much as you. That has literally nothing to do with what we're talking about. Clandestine actions can exist right alongside generalized revolt. The individuals carrying out these kind of acts are not opposed to the class moving as a body.Except when these unaccountable actions cause heat to come down on the rest of us, cause movements to have to bail people out, and let's the media take the focus away from the class issues so they can divide protesters from the general population by creating a straw-man of violent occupiers/anarchists.


And thats why your comparison is irrelevant. Because the IAF is not claiming to act for or on behalf of the class.So then they are acting as induviduals and it's not class struggle?


They don't do things for the class. Thats not the intent. These actions do however, strike a concrete blow at capital, and they contribute to an overall climate of intensity.

[quote]The real issue here is that you only believe the escalation of struggle should occur at specific points (no doubt, determined by your organization).There's no "stages" I believe escalation should happen when it will advance things, not anytime regardless of the circumstances or consequences to the struggle. No I believe that escalation for the sake of escalation is the strategy of losers or a moralistic gesture. You call this a war and your strategy has only "charge!" for tactics? Yeah let me know how that worked for the European powers in the trenches or for General Custard.

"no doubt, determined by your organization" - have you ever read anything I've written, this is just pure deflection and trolling. You wanna play it unprincipled? You don't got logic to defend your PHD radical's ideological flavor of the month?


It disrupts the flow of capital, which is a military victory against our enemy. Are you not willing or ready to view our situation as war? Because I certainly do...For it to be a war there would have to be two organized forces who see the battle lines are have opposing goals. Is the working class at this point? Or is the working class under a massive attack by a conscious international capitalist class trying to make us eat their crisis?

If only it was a war - but to get to that point workers need to know it's a war and have the ability to fight as a class.

[Art Vandelay]

No I believe that modern anarchism is a class and communist movement, but induvidual acts of terror is a petty-bourgeois strategy of individuals who act as individuals because they don't have the potential to collectively control the means of production.

Were not talking about "individual acts of terror" quit treating this like it is terrorism.


Means and ends. How does abstract "disruption" help our class prepare to fight in its own interests?

Are you telling me small clandestine cliques can do more disruption than Hurricane Katrina? How did that New Orleans black and poor people's commune work out? Oh it didn't it just lead to the wealthier people arming themselves and shooting black refugees while cops ran roughshod over any survivors they encountered.

The goal of any insurrection is to become irreversible. It becomes irreversible when you’ve defeated both authority and the need for authority, property and the taste for appropriation, hegemony and the desire for hegemony. That is why the insurrectionary process carries within itself the form of its victory, or that of its defeat. Destruction has never been enough to make things irreversible. What matters is how it’s done. There are ways of destroying that unfailingly provoke the return of what has been crushed. Whoever wastes their energy on the corpse of an order can be sure that this will arouse the desire for vengeance. Thus, wherever the economy is blocked and the police are neutralized, it is important to invest as little pathos as possible in overthrowing the authorities. They must be deposed with the most scrupulous indifference and derision.


Except when these unaccountable actions cause heat to come down on the rest of us, cause movements to have to bail people out, and let's the media take the focus away from the class issues so they can divide protesters from the general population by creating a straw-man of violent occupiers/anarchists.

I hate this fucking liberal bullshit reasoning that I keep hearing from pro-revolutionaries. Don't get me wrong, usually I think you are one of the best posters on the site, but this needs to be learnt once and for all: were never going to get good press, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. Unless your fighting for the continuation of capital, then the forces of capital will always slander you.


So then they are acting as induviduals and it's not class struggle?


These types of actions are class struggle; unless you assume these anarchists were not proletarians? This is also certainly a war:

In times like these, the end of centralized revolutions reflects the decentralization of power. Winter Palaces still exist but they have been relegated to assaults by tourists rather than revolutionary hordes. Today it is possible to take over Paris, Rome, or Buenos Aires without it being a decisive victory. Taking over Rungis would certainly be more effective than taking over the Elysée Palace. Power is no longer concentrated in one point in the world; it is the world itself, its flows and its avenues, its people and its norms, its codes and its technologies. Power is the organization of the metropolis itself. It is the impeccable totality of the world of the commodity at each of its points. Anyone who defeats it locally sends a planetary shock wave through its networks. The riots that began in Clichy-sous-Bois filled more than one American household with joy, while the insurgents of Oaxaca found accomplices right in the heart of Paris. For France, the loss of centralized power signifies the end of Paris as the center of revolutionary activity. Every new movement since the strikes of 1995 has confirmed this. It’s no longer in Paris that the most daring and consistent actions are carried out. To put it bluntly, Paris now stands out only as a target for raids, as a pure terrain to be pillaged and ravaged. Brief and brutal incursions from the outside strike at the metropolitan flows at their point of maximum density. Rage streaks across this desert of fake abundance, then vanishes. A day will come when this capital and its horrible concretion of power will lie in majestic ruins, but it will be at the end of a process that will be far more advanced everywhere else.

In the subway, there’s no longer any trace of the screen of embarrassment that normally impedes the gestures of the passengers. Strangers make conversation without making passes. A band of comrades conferring on a street corner. Much larger assemblies on the boulevards, absorbed in discussions. Surprise attacks mounted in city after city, day after day. A new military barracks has been sacked and burned to the ground. The evicted residents of a building have stopped negotiating with the mayor’s office; they settle in. A company manager is inspired to blow away a handful of his colleagues in the middle of a meeting. There’s been a leak of files containing the personal addresses of all the cops, together with those of prison officials, causing an unprecedented wave of sudden relocations. We carry our surplus goods into the old village bar and grocery store, and take what we lack. Some of us stay long enough to discuss the general situation and figure out the hardware we need for the machine shop. The radio keeps the insurgents informed of the retreat of the government forces. A rocket has just breached a wall of the Clairvaux prison. Impossible to say if it has been months or years since the “events” began. And the prime minister seems very alone in his appeals for calm.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Well it's a collective action connected to a larger movement with specific grievences.

Oh, like the incoherent babble that came from the majority of the Occupy leaders? While the very investors they were protesting against mocked them while drinking champagne on their lunch breaks?


It also helps teach workers (or in this case potential workers or workers in training) to cooperate and fight in their common interests through their own actions and experiences. You know the skills necessary for effective class war from our side.

Or, it teaches the opposite, that you mustn't rebel and can only lash out with the permission of the state following it's rules for organizing and merely shout your frustration through a megaphone of which all those angry words and syllables drown out into an endless animal bleat at the ears of the bourgeois.


What does individualist action do?

Show that you can fight against socio-economic exploitation and tyranny. That you don't have to sit here and take it. That it's not some fanatasy or dream, that's beyond your control but rather the very opposite. For starters. Action can be seen as progadanda in and of itself.


It creates specialists that fight in the name of some conception of a passive working class. It produces professional warriors, not a confident and conscious working class ready to fight in its own interests.

I think this would qualify as reaching, here.


So if politics don't matter, then Tim McVeigh blowing up a federal building is just as legitimate?

Are you really comparing sabotage, an act which causes no physical harm to any worker and some mindless, right-wing asshole who killed hundreds of men, women and children? Wtf?

What's incredibly odd to me is, any and all protests or demonstrations here, are applauded outright but any direct action is met with condemnation. I don't get it.

[Art Vandelay]

Show that you can fight against socio-economic exploitation and tyranny. That you don't have to sit here and take it. That it's not some fanatasy or dream, that's beyond your control but rather the very opposite. For starters. Action can be seen as progadanda in and of itself.

This. Also:
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.” - Albert Camus.

And:



Are you really comparing sabotage, an act which causes no physical harm to any worker and some mindless, right-wing asshole who killed hundreds of men, women and children? Wtf?

I know right. :confused:

[StalinFanboy]

No I believe that modern anarchism is a class and communist movement, but induvidual acts of terror is a petty-bourgeois strategy of individuals who act as individuals because they don't have the potential to collectively control the means of production. So... you think they are sabotaging train lines because they aren't able to control the MoP? Like, that is seriously what you believe is motivating these people?

haha "alright mates, looks like we wont be able to take over and means of production tonight so we might as well go sabotage a train line."

Calling people terrorists is petty-bourgeois. Not sabotage. ha



Means and ends. How does abstract "disruption" help our class prepare to fight in its own interests?
You are creating a false dichotomy. It isn't "teach the working class how to fight" on the side or "lead the sheep working class" on the other. Fact of the matter is, these things happen during times of strife. Always. Property gets destroyed. Flows get halted. Sometimes it happens in large groups, sometimes in small ones.

Why do people like you always turn being a pro-revolutionary into some sort of puritanical set of rules. Working class people steal shit and break things all the time. Why is it revolutionary when a regular worker sabotages something, but something to be criticized and distanced from when it is political people?




Are you telling me small clandestine cliques can do more disruption than Hurricane Katrina? How did that New Orleans black and poor people's commune work out? Oh it didn't it just lead to the wealthier people arming themselves and shooting black refugees while cops ran roughshod over any survivors they encountered.

Are you telling me that you actually think this is a legit and intelligent argument?


Except when these unaccountable actions cause heat to come down on the rest of us, cause movements to have to bail people out, and let's the media take the focus away from the class issues so they can divide protesters from the general population by creating a straw-man of violent occupiers/anarchists.

oh fuck off. you and i and everyone else that has been even remotely involved in Occupy Oakland know that this is a gigantic load of bullshit. Power does not need justification for repression. Shit man, didn't you learn nothin?


So then they are acting as induviduals and it's not class struggle? You are aware that the class is made up of individuals, right?

You still haven't told us when the cut off is for something to be class struggle and no longer "individualistic." Here's a scenario: Lets say there were 4 people involved in the action in Bristol. To you this is an individualist act that doesn't teach the working class how to fight and instead seeks to lend itself toward a small gang of people attempting a coup but not really a coup. Alright, but what if its four workers who worked at a train yard or some shit that sabotaged it? Or hell, just four workers somewhere sabotaging something where they work.

Is that petty-bourgeois individualist terrorism?



There's no "stages" I believe escalation should happen when it will advance things, not anytime regardless of the circumstances or consequences to the struggle. No I believe that escalation for the sake of escalation is the strategy of losers or a moralistic gesture. Oh shit! Ya'll figured it out?! Shit yeah, bro! :thumbup1: Do you mind telling us when to act so that the struggle will continue to advance? Cause we been out here for like 200 years or some shit and we ain't reached full communism yet. Everything has failed.

For real, don't give me that shit about the "right time." Cause nobody knows when that will be or what it will look like. What is necessary for revolution to occur is revolutionary-experimentation with the way we live our lives and the way we attack our enemies.


You call this a war and your strategy has only "charge!" for tactics? How you came to this conclusion beats me.



For it to be a war there would have to be two organized forces who see the battle lines are have opposing goals. Is the working class at this point? Or is the working class under a massive attack by a conscious international capitalist class trying to make us eat their crisis? No. War is a conflict of intensities. What we are engaged in on this forum is a sort of low-level warfare. A war of ideas and language to be sure, but a war nonetheless.

And if the working class really is under attack by the ruling class in the midst of their crisis, then it seems as if their would be a war being waged that is deploying a complex, often very subtle, array of tactics.

That confusion and ignorance about the very existence of the war is the current situation is itself a tactical move: its much easier to give people nice, soft things and feed them lies and fairytales in order to make them believe that the forces dominating them are in fact keeping them safe, that they live in peace (and even that safety and peace are preferable to freedom), and those that would want to end the domination of the commodity are in fact terrorists bent on trying to ruin everyone's lives.

How do we tear away the veil that keeps the world from people and makes them pacified and cowardly? I have no idea. But I'm not going to shit on the people making genuine attempts.

[Anarchist Skinhead]

you sir are talking poo-poo, especially "state assets" bit is just lame and gets thrown around a lot. "it's conspiracy maaaaan". Just because people go about things in a different way from you and refuse to conform to accepted norm of "hard, but not too hard" of struggle, doesn't mean they are state assets. And if you follow a history a bit, state really doesn't need to justify their repressions. Look at the whole Occupy thing- perfectly peaceful and yet they get battered and gassed everywhere around.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Were not talking about "individual acts of terror" quit treating this like it is terrorism.Yes, if you support "disrupting" capitalism through induviduals and small groups taking it apon themselves, then it is terrorism. At least be fucking honest about it. I support Palistinaians or Jews in the Warsaw ghetto using any means at their disposal to fight their oppression. The thing about this is we are not currently in death camps and we have much more effective means at our disposal than "disruption". If the ruling class can survive natural disasters, Tsunamis and shit... you really fucking think random individual attacks would accomplish jack shit?! Beyond that again and again and again I ask how the fuck this is a class strategy since it doesn't put the class I'm in any where closer to having the ability to run society ourselves!


The goal of any insurrection is to become irreversible. It becomes irreversible when you’ve defeated both authority and the need for authority, property and the taste for appropriation, hegemony and the desire for hegemony. WHO HAD DEFEATED IT? If this romanticized nonsense even had a change of accomplishing this "disruption" who has defeated it? A class that as a class sees common cause and realizes that they need to stop capitalism and reshape society THEMSELVES? Or has some clique of gurellas done this. Che goes Crimethink.


I hate this fucking liberal bullshit reasoning that I keep hearing from pro-revolutionaries. Don't get me wrong, usually I think you are one of the best posters on the site, but this needs to be learnt once and for all: were never going to get good press, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. Unless your fighting for the continuation of capital, then the forces of capital will always slander you. Yes they will, what's the point. They say that communists want to take away everyone's freedom - so it doesn't matter if I go around telling people that I can't wait for them to be in gulags after the revolution? I'm saying that people will only believe capitalist propaganda as long as they have no other available evidence. Take off the fucking masks, be open and work with actual workers and actual class forces rather than playing games. How in the hell are people supposed to trust a revolutionary in a mask? Hell half of the local Indy Media page arguments are about if vandalism in Occupy Oakland was done by actual BB or by police provocateurs. What the fuck does it say when Anarchists don't even trust other anarchists. These tactics are BANKRUPT and USELESS.


These types of actions are class struggle; unless you assume these anarchists were not proletarians? This is also certainly a war:Idiocy. So a working class fascist action is part of the class struggle since he's a prol? Class actions would involve not INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS BY INDIVIDUAL working class people. It would be like a strike or whatnot where workers as workers and taking a collective stand in their own interests.

If you want to take over a bridge or a port and you can organize this with clear intention and purpose, then it aids the class struggle because it is workers learning that they have power - a strike shows the bosses and the workers themselves real power in society and production.


In the subway, there’s no longer any trace of the screen of embarrassment that normally impedes the gestures of the passengers. Strangers make conversation without making passes. A band of comrades conferring on a street corner. Much larger assemblies on the boulevards, absorbed in discussions. Surprise attacks mounted in city after city, day after day. A new military barracks has been sacked and burned to the ground. The evicted residents of a building have stopped negotiating with the mayor’s office; they settle in. A company manager is inspired to blow away a handful of his colleagues in the middle of a meeting. There’s been a leak of files containing the personal addresses of all the cops, together with those of prison officials, causing an unprecedented wave of sudden relocations. We carry our surplus goods into the old village bar and grocery store, and take what we lack. Some of us stay long enough to discuss the general situation and figure out the hardware we need for the machine shop. The radio keeps the insurgents informed of the retreat of the government forces. A rocket has just breached a wall of the Clairvaux prison. Impossible to say if it has been months or years since the “events” began. And the prime minister seems very alone in his appeals for calm.Workers as passive players in your romantic fantasy of leaping over material reality.

Honestly this sounds like the shit that fascist write about "race war" except with egalitarian aesthetics and language.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Oh, like the incoherent babble that came from the majority of the Occupy leaders? While the very investors they were protesting against mocked them while drinking champagne on their lunch breaks?A modest movement that had great potential because of the ability to connect with wider class anger. In this phase of the movement what was accomplished:

1. The democrats were embarrassed and the national conversation became about inequality rather than Obama killing Bin Laden.
2. People in the US began talking about being "working class" with pride.
3. Liberals were radicalized due to the political discussions in the camps being backed up by real-life experiences. Liberals in the movement initially said cops were workers in Oakland and now they say "Fuck the Cops". Liberals said the mayor and the media were on our side.
4. We shut down the port of oakland with community and labor solidarity while the cops were totally unable to stop us.

Now let's compare that to the BB and Insurrectionist tactics.

1. Regular confrontations with the cops. Cops stopped our actions and won every-time there was intentional adventurist skirmishes (Cops couldn't stop our actions when the mass marches happened). Hundreds arrested in Oakland.

2. The conversation in Oakland about Occupy went from talking about Police over-reaction to "anarchist" vandalism. This is not in the media, this is in the public. The media was alway saying that OO was a bunch of Hippies and that the camp was full of disease and rats and whatnot.


Or, it teaches the opposite, that you mustn't rebel and can only lash out with the permission of the state following it's rules for organizing and merely shout your frustration through a megaphone of which all those angry words and syllables drown out into an endless animal bleat at the ears of the bourgeois. Straw-man. Megaphones don't hurt capital, they can help mobilize the real force in society capable of doing so though.

I helped lead a port shut down of 10,000 of people - a member of the IWW proposed this action. This does more than "disrupt" but it shows how WORKERS and community members in solidarity can collectively impact society through their mutual actions - not rely on politicians or saviors in masks.

Again, what does some random terror and disruption do for working class consiousness?


Show that you can fight against socio-economic exploitation and tyranny. That you don't have to sit here and take it. That it's not some fanatasy or dream, that's beyond your control but rather the very opposite. For starters. Action can be seen as progadanda in and of itself.But again it doesn't help people to fight as a class as workers in their own interests. Any tactic can be used for any reason - show people that a small group of people can blow up a bridge... well that knowledge can just as easily be applied by fascists blowing up a school of immigrant kids.


Are you really comparing sabotage, an act which causes no physical harm to any worker and some mindless, right-wing asshole who killed hundreds of men, women and children? Wtf?No, I don't care about morality. If a nazi blew up an empty school it wouldn't make it better or a non-nazi act. So that's what distinguishes KKK vigilante violence from Left-wing vigilante violence... the body count?


What's incredibly odd to me is, any and all protests or demonstrations here, are applauded outright but any direct action is met with condemnation. I don't get it.Straw-man. It's a question of means and ends. I want any tactics and any means necissary to make our class in a better position to fight. Pacifism on principle, even general strikes on principle are wrong just as "escalation" or confrontation on principle are wrong and useless for an effective class struggle.

Read about the US new left, people are making the exact same fucking mistakes all over again.

There's nothing inherently wrong in any tactics, but these methods I don't think they are organically connected to the working class struggle - they are an "elite" who see themselves as more advanced and the "vanguard" of the class war. But just like the bullshit lenninists who proclaim themeselve the vanguard while having no organic connection to working class struggle - it's delusional.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Species Being,

I replied to your post in a new thread about sabotage:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/individual-class-struggle-t172121/index.html

[dodger]

As a retired railwayman---lost my support. I would not have a seconds hesitation in shopping someone interfering with railway safety equipment. Nor I have to say would any of my old workmates.

[Desperado]

Meh.

Yeah, so I suppose disrupting capital is good.

But there's a difference between a small militant bunch of activists stopping workers going to work, and the workers themselves stopping it, by striking or whatever.

It's workers that recreate the social relation everyday, by getting on the train to go to work and by running the trains. Activists don't recreate the social relation by not smashing stuff. It's the workers that can transform it. By doing militant weatherman style activist stuff, you're not being revolutionary in your capacity as a worker. Then you're seeing revolutionary things as being outside your capacity as a worker, outside your everyday life.

Imagine if instead of a miners strike a bunch of hardcore activists had just blown up all the mines. Ok, less profit for capital. But there wouldn't be the forming of solidarity, the workers realising that it's they themselves that create the world and that with their productive power they can transform it. Capital is a social relation. It's not for activists to smash, kick until it breaks, it's for workers to overturn and replace.

Still, I appreciate there's a couple of hardcore angry people out there. Go smash some crap. It's probably quite fun too. But the revolution is at production.

[Desperado]

When railway workers start smashing stuff, or even better, striking in solidarity with other workers (http://libcom.org/news/successful-fare-strike-new-york-subways-29032012), I'll be a bit more interested.

[dodger]

Which union are you in?
Desperado. I found the RMT over the years a most satisfactory union to belong to. Some wish to seize the assets---never heard a word about smashing them---except from Capitalists. Ever hear of Beeching? At the centre of the argument should be passenger and staff safety. Wreckers have lost the argument on every count.

[The Douche]

As a retired railwayman---lost my support. I would not have a seconds hesitation in shopping someone interfering with railway safety equipment. Nor I have to say would any of my old workmates.

Fuck you, cop. You want to interfere with workplace sabotage, that makes you a cop.

Some people put their lives and freedom on the line in the struggle against capital, some people, like you, turn them in.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Fuck you, cop. You want to interfere with workplace sabotage, that makes you a cop.

Some people put their lives and freedom on the line in the struggle against capital, some people, like you, turn them in.

A tad unneccesary..and quite juvenile 'Yeah, you're either with us or against us, pig!', just for having a persceptive based on his own work life and experience? (I know dodger can defend himself if he chooses to, but an admin being that obnoxious and rude is worrying, that's all)

"Lives and freedom on the line?"...yes, that's true, people do that for just causes and I applaud and respect them...don't quite see these guys in that light. No more heroic than putting a molotov through an empty shop's window then running off shouting 'Freeedoooooom!'

[The Douche]

A tad unneccesary..and quite juvenile 'Yeah, you're either with us or against us, pig!', just for having a persceptive based on his own work life and experience? (I know dodger can defend himself if he chooses to, but an admin being that obnoxious and rude is worrying, that's all)

"Lives and freedom on the line?"...yes, that's true, people do that for just causes and I applaud and respect them...don't quite see these guys in that light. No more heroic than putting a molotov through an empty shop's window then running off shouting 'Freeedoooooom!'

Dodger did not disagree with them, which is what some people did through out this thread, and we had a debate. What dodger said, is that he would stop them, he would act in defense of private property and capital, against the actions of revolutionaries.

To what degree, he does not make clear, but if somebody is willing to act in defense of capital then there is no telling what lengths they would go to. And that includes calling the police or cooperating with an investigation.


So I stand by what I said. Fuck him, he's a fucking cop.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, I'm sure Jimmie Higgins, if he saw this going on, would just turn around and walk away, because even though he disagrees with it, he's not a cop.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

ITT:

Lots of people who don't know what the "Global Civil War" is.

If you don't know what a theoretical concept is, you need to investigate it before you condemn it, because you're not even condemning it or attacking it correctly. And if you don't even know that that sort of language "civil war" implies a specific theoretical background (Tiqqun in this case), then it only demonstrates your own ignorance.

And aside from the issue of posters on revleft not knowing the theory they're critiquing, the transportation system is, without a doubt, a valid target in the disruption of capital. I don't even see how this can be argued. The goal is to disrupt capital, and if workers don't show up for work, capital has been disrupted.

Sorry, that's some of the worst intellectual elitism i've heard.

When you have an action and declare you want 'civil war' (unless you're only circling the declaration internally), the general, non-anarchist left, working class and general public is probably going to take the layman's understanding of 'civil war'.

To declare that nobody who has studied this obscure theoretical idea as 'ignorant' is really beyond the pale.

[Ocean Seal]

And yet revleft allows this thread to devolve into a discussion of semantics. Are they claiming to represent the working class? Is there something fundamentally wrong with doing that? Its an effective campaigning tactic. What about these small sabotage attempts? What is wrong with them?

They lower class consciousness? Can it really get much lower in the US/UK? Is this going to slow down the trade union movement? Or will it lead to less wildcat strikes? How about the general politicization of the working class? It is equally naive for one to think that this raises or lowers class consciousness.

[The Douche]

Sorry, that's some of the worst intellectual elitism i've heard.

When you have an action and declare you want 'civil war' (unless you're only circling the declaration internally), the general, non-anarchist left, working class and general public is probably going to take the layman's understanding of 'civil war'.

To declare that nobody who has studied this obscure theoretical idea as 'ignorant' is really beyond the pale.

I'm sorry, what website are we posting on, and where was this communique pulled from?

Answers:

Revleft
Anarchistnews/libcom/indymedia




unless you're only circling the declaration internally

You were saying?

We already went over this in the begining of the thread.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Dodger did not disagree with them, which is what some people did through out this thread, and we had a debate. What dodger said, is that he would stop them, he would act in defense of private property and capital, against the actions of revolutionaries.

To what degree, he does not make clear, but if somebody is willing to act in defense of capital then there is no telling what lengths they would go to. And that includes calling the police or cooperating with an investigation.


So I stand by what I said. Fuck him, he's a fucking cop.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, I'm sure Jimmie Higgins, if he saw this going on, would just turn around and walk away, because even though he disagrees with it, he's not a cop.

Or he just didn't think they should have potentially endangered passengers and workers by fucking with signals...no call to the cops or whatever.
Anyway, you have your opinion and I take your point about walking away, I would have.

(Really sorry for speaking for you there dodger, I'll fuck off and mind my own in future)

[The Douche]

Or he just didn't think they should have potentially endangered passengers and workers by fucking with signals...no call to the cops or whatever.
Anyway, you have your opinion and I take your point about walking away, I would have.

(Really sorry for speaking for you there dodger, I'll fuck off and mind my own in future)

There is no doubt in my mind that when the signal cables are damaged the rail company is alerted automatically, by sensors/a computer system and trains don't run on effected rails.

[Manic Impressive]

great a crack down on anarchists and communists for what will only be superficial gains among some disaffected youth. This is a selfish and egotistical act to make these people feel like they are being REAL revolutionaries. That's what it comes down to.

[dodger]

Fuck you, cop. You want to interfere with workplace sabotage, that makes you a cop.

Some people put their lives and freedom on the line in the struggle against capital, some people, like you, turn them in.

Funny --looks to me like these overgrown schoolboy clowns were putting other lives at risk--NOT THEIR OWN PRECIOUS HIDES!

KINDLY EXERCISE SOME SELF CONTROL TOILET MOUTH. Not one of my workmates would hesitate in shopping that dangerous little fool. Smell the coffee, it is capitalism destroying public transport...along with some lame brained dimwits. Willing little helpers! We don't need lessons from you about Guerilla Warfare it's a jungle out there!! Or come to think of it "work place sabotage!" A steep learning curve, for you? We do NOT like our lives or livelihoods put at risk by Anarchist CLOWNS.

[dodger]

There is no doubt in my mind that when the signal cables are damaged the rail company is alerted automatically, by sensors/a computer system and trains don't run on effected rails.

Yer got that wrong!! They apply Rule blah blah blah. It is basic-----ABC---safety equipment----what kind of moron sabotages SAFETY EQUIPMENT??. Clearly a bunch of feckless dopes....

and YES i WOULD CONTACT ALL EMERGENCY SERVICES TOO. NOT ONE SECONDS HESITATION.

PLOD ...included. If they are capable of destroying safety equipment---what else may they have been doing? They must be stopped before there are fatalities.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yer got that wrong!! They apply Rule blah blah blah. It is basic-----ABC---safety equipment----what kind of moron sabotages SAFETY EQUIPMENT??. Clearly a bunch of feckless dopes....

and YES i WOULD CONTACT ALL EMERGENCY SERVICES TOO. NOT ONE SECONDS HESITATION.

PLOD ...included. If they are capable of destroying safety equipment---what else may they have been doing? They must be stopped before there are fatalities.

But you are perfectly willing to work for the destruction of the lives of others and putting other lives in danger...seeing as:


the Ministry of Defence, as well as military industry companies Raytheon/Thales/HP/QuinetiQ etc.

I wonder what these people make for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and a whole host of other people.....flower bombs perhaps?

So do not act all high and mighty...

[bricolage]

regardless of opinions on the action in itself, its pretty naive and misleading to assume the disruption would only affect those travelling to work at the arms companies mentioned.

[The Douche]

regardless of opinions on the action in itself, its pretty naive and misleading to assume the disruption would only affect those travelling to work at the arms companies mentioned.

Cause we only support disrupting capital on that front? The point is to disrupt the flow of capital, not just the arms companies.

[Tim Finnegan]

Dodger did not disagree with them, which is what some people did through out this thread, and we had a debate. What dodger said, is that he would stop them, he would act in defense of private property and capital, against the actions of revolutionaries.
Is this not getting a bit close to the logic of "pacifists are objectively pro-Hitler"?

[bricolage]

Cause we only support disrupting capital on that front? The point is to disrupt the flow of capital, not just the arms companies.
I know. I was referring to the poster above's attempt to use it as a justification of the action and its prominence in the comminique. It all seems like a bit of a cop-out and a concession to the same public opinion politics that 'the left' is condemned for. Like you said they want to disrupt 'the flow of capital' and think that sabotaging trains will do it, might as well be honest about it.

[dodger]

But you are perfectly willing to work for the destruction of the lives of others and putting other lives in danger...seeing as:



I wonder what these people make for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and a whole host of other people.....flower bombs perhaps?

So do not act all high and mighty...

High and mighty? Basic training. Safety of public. Those craven cowards fled the scene. If you have issues with merchants of death, how is endangering the lives of fellow workers and general travelling public, bring us one step closer in stopping this foul trade. Those creeps are no different to Breivic---same mindset.Same incoherent philosophy, his excuse it seems is pathology--not out of bounds, that these moronic maquis share his pathology.

[Ele'ill]

Those craven cowards fled the scene.

Because some people like to give people over to the police.


If you have issues with merchants of death, how is endangering the lives of fellow workers and general travelling public, bring us one step closer in stopping this foul trade.

You have yet to prove that anybody was endangered.

[Prometeo liberado]

Fuck you, cop. You want to interfere with workplace sabotage, that makes you a cop.

Some people put their lives and freedom on the line in the struggle against capital, some people, like you, turn them in.

Your much better than this post, or should be. Though I dont agree with dodger whatsoever on this, you just make yourself look the tired posterboy of an anarchist. "Fuck you, cop"? Thats what you come with? Verbal warning little buddy, verbal-fucking-warning!

[ComradeOm]

You want to interfere with workplace sabotage...Were these activists railway workers?

Edit:

I wonder what these people make for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and a whole host of other people.....flower bombs perhaps?Leaving aside the gaping moral chasm of wishing death on workers because of their industry; what of those people whose day was disrupted or lives potentially endangered and yet don't work work for a defence firm? It's nonsense to suggest only those who contribute to 'the wars in Iraq et al' were affected by this action. So that is a complete red herring

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anarchism needs to be there for those who hate society for what it is not and those who love it for what it could be. - AG Schwarz

[Tim Finnegan]

Those creeps are no different to Breivic---same mindset.Same incoherent philosophy, his excuse it seems is pathology--not out of bounds, that these moronic maquis share his pathology.
Have you recently suffered a blow to the head? It's hard to believe that anyone with all their wits about them could seriously believe this.

[Art Vandelay]

Sorry, that's some of the worst intellectual elitism i've heard.

When you have an action and declare you want 'civil war' (unless you're only circling the declaration internally), the general, non-anarchist left, working class and general public is probably going to take the layman's understanding of 'civil war'.

To declare that nobody who has studied this obscure theoretical idea as 'ignorant' is really beyond the pale.

But as he already stated, he was referring to a certain pro-revolutionary millleu not your average people. That was not the target audience for the action.

[dodger]

Because some people like to give people over to the police.



You have yet to prove that anybody was endangered.

Yes Mari3L, I can guarantee that vandals on the railways, are when spotted invariably police are notified. Many are about 12yrs of age-no excuse, though maybe after these shenanigans they might claim to be freedom fighters. In point of fact I care as much about their fate as they care about mine and others.

Signals are safety equipment. They were brought in because of previous accidents on railways. Unions themselves have fought tooth and nail to bring in modern equipment. I say again those cowards put others in danger not themselves.
http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CEsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRailway _signal&ei=ZMjDT-C-H6bJmQX_8IitCg&usg=AFQjCNGZNhGLeyQT4E3TZzMaY8v8xYMAFg

Well what are these fools going to try next? Their terror methods wont work! Attempts to frighten people have had no success. Even IRA BOMBS IN OUR DEPOT JUST PRODUCED A SHRUG OF THE SHOULDERS. a STRING OF CURSES WHEN ASKED TO GO OUT AND SEARCH THE TRAINS. Whatever issues will be submerged. Common sense really.

42 replies to my email. No comment from me. All largely unprintable. None concerning the arms trade another 50 or so ex co workers, trade unionists family friends. More of the same...no doubt.

[dodger]

Have you recently suffered a blow to the head? It's hard to believe that anyone with all their wits about them could seriously believe this.

Minus the foul language, one of the responses to an email sent out to folk back in the old country. Still made me think....is there a pathological or drug issue here? Even children are taught not to. Of course it did not stop us from throwing live ammo brought back from the war down the funnel of a steam train. We were 6/7yrs old. Fucking about on railways inevitably brings misery. I wont discount a pathological aspect, until I see evidence to the contrary. Are they policeman? We don't know. So I am quite prepared to believe the worst. We will see.

[PhoenixAsh]

regardless of opinions on the action in itself, its pretty naive and misleading to assume the disruption would only affect those travelling to work at the arms companies mentioned.

which, if you read the communique, they don't do




Edit:
Leaving aside the gaping moral chasm of wishing death on workers because of their industry; what of those people whose day was disrupted or lives potentially endangered and yet don't work work for a defence firm? It's nonsense to suggest only those who contribute to 'the wars in Iraq et al' were affected by this action. So that is a complete red herring

Leaving aside the huge problem you have with following the debates arguments and the fact that you obviously missed the point.... I suggested no such thing.

What I did suggest is that Dodger takes a nice moralist position on condemning sabotage actions based on a huge freaking assumption that lives were actually in danger and saying that he doesn't like people contributing to a threat to the life and safety of others....he is not so quick in condemning the contribution of those people in endangering the life and safety of yet again others by contributing directly to their demise....a nice little moralist vicious circle where he choses an arbitrary position without thought.

Now....I do not need to mention the parallel between sabotage actions and executions during wartime by partisans and communist induvidual resistance members/groups and these kind of actions now do I?

Because: class war....it IS being waged.





High and mighty? Basic training. Safety of public. Those craven cowards fled the scene. If you have issues with merchants of death, how is endangering the lives of fellow workers and general travelling public, bring us one step closer in stopping this foul trade. Those creeps are no different to Breivic---same mindset.Same incoherent philosophy, his excuse it seems is pathology--not out of bounds, that these moronic maquis share his pathology.

Don't be so freaking dramatic because no lives were in danger.


Yes Mari3L, I can guarantee that vandals on the railways, are when spotted invariably police are notified. Many are about 12yrs of age-no excuse, though maybe after these shenanigans they might claim to be freedom fighters. In point of fact I care as much about their fate as they care about mine and others.

Signals are safety equipment. They were brought in because of previous accidents on railways. Unions themselves have fought tooth and nail to bring in modern equipment. I say again those cowards put others in danger not themselves.
http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CEsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRailway _signal&ei=ZMjDT-C-H6bJmQX_8IitCg&usg=AFQjCNGZNhGLeyQT4E3TZzMaY8v8xYMAFg

Well what are these fools going to try next? Their terror methods wont work! Attempts to frighten people have had no success. Even IRA BOMBS IN OUR DEPOT JUST PRODUCED A SHRUG OF THE SHOULDERS. a STRING OF CURSES WHEN ASKED TO GO OUT AND SEARCH THE TRAINS. Whatever issues will be submerged. Common sense really.

42 replies to my email. No comment from me. All largely unprintable. None concerning the arms trade another 50 or so ex co workers, trade unionists family friends. More of the same...no doubt.

The UK has an AWS signal installed since 1956 and continuously updated. When signals are disfunctional the train is put to an automatic stop within 2.75 seconds if the driver fails to acknowledge the warning sign and act accordingly.

So don't go all: "OMZG they endangered lives" on us

[PhoenixAsh]

But Dodger...so you would hand over or snitch on anybody from the revolutionary and radical left who takes DA in which there is risk involved for others?

[dodger]

But Dodger...so you would hand over or snitch on anybody from the revolutionary and radical left who takes DA in which there is risk involved for others?

JUDGE FOR YOURSELF WHETHER THERE IS DANGER, HINDSIGHT.....

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CF0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSignal_ passed_at_danger&ei=x97DT4TrKsfMmAX1mryjDQ&usg=AFQjCNHrZkAw8PyzOVXUEOdxU1zTxmiiTA

VERY MUCH A 20TH CENTURY RAILWAY...EVEN 19TH CENTURY IN PARTS. I CANNOT CLAIM TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THAT SECTION OF LINE. ANY PASSING OF A SIGNAL INVOLVES THE RISK OF HUMAN ERROR.

Be specific hindsight...do you mean DA like throwing bricks at firefighters? I would certainly make a mental note not to give any credence or support. If persuasion failed Dodger would probably think then of his own safety and head off home. No sense in provoking the ire of thugs or mini-me Brevics. Besides my part of the world police are never there when you need them --only when their presence is not welcome. No it is not my culture to have anything to do wit the police. My sister joined the force---I have spoken 3 times to her in 47years.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I want to back away from the tone of some of my earlier comments. I shouldn't have said things like these people aren't anarchists and whatnot, but frankly I was shocked that people were apologizing and defending this strategy and so I said somethings in a overly-colorful way that wasn't the most political. So will try and continue arguing but in a political way - though sometimes I can't help overemphasizeing something for effect.


And yet revleft allows this thread to devolve into a discussion of semantics. Are they claiming to represent the working class? Is there something fundamentally wrong with doing that?Well there's something fundamenatlly wrong with that if you want working class self-emancipation. Every nationalists and "socialist" dictators said they were ruling "for" the working class but as Eugene Debs said when he was running for President, doing things "for" workers is not the point and if someone can lead workers to the promised land, they or someone else can lead them right out.

Its an effective campaigning tactic. What about these small sabotage attempts? What is wrong with them? Only that is is not directly connected to concrete struggles of actual workers and it is a gross misunderstanding of where class consciousness is at in the UK.

In Egypt in the context of the mass movement some of this makes some sense even if I don't think that these actions are enough to do much by themselves - it was the strikes by Suez workers that actually forced to government to give-in. Street-Fighting to "keep the square" from cops and government thugs when the attacked was ESSENTIAL. But the majority of general street fighting (while I think an appropriate tactic, though not the best one) was peripheral - our power as workers is in our numbers and our position (ability to strike and even take over).

in Greece it makes a little less sense (to me) since there are other ways to struggle that are more effective and I think these things can potentially confuse workers and help the fash as much as it rallies any workers, but again it's understandable because these actions can only be seen by the mass of workers as at least connected to the larger class struggle. That's because theses a much greater degree of class consciousness due to the ruling class assault and the larger movements.

Now in the UK or the US or most other places right now, working class consiousness is not at a point where most people even realize they are under class assault. So in this context, I think "war" while our class is unprepared, will just mean that some random acts of violence by the left will discredit our other ideas and strategies while helping the BNP and the fascists find a more popular audience and giving more credibility to the state's claims that they need to "control us".


They lower class consciousness? Can it really get much lower in the US/UK?Um really? How bout fascism? How about post-9/11 jingoism and conformity? A "disruption" in the form of 9/11 destroyed the anti-globalization movement in the US. Literally - I was working on an immigrant strike and they got scared that the government was just going to round everyone up or that there'd be a series of attacks and so they called it off on the evening of 9/11!


Is this going to slow down the trade union movement?No but it could drive a wedge between the rank and file who are looking for effective strategies, and radical politics if this is what they see anarchism as. Why are union politics so bad, because the leadership is largely unchallenged and they have eroded internal democracy to peruse an accommodationist strategy. In this crisis rank and filers and radicals can make inroads because our politics make sense and our traditional union militant strategies are necessary if workers are to make any gains in union struggles. At the beginning of Occupy Oakland, the union leaders had to TAIL the rank and file militants who supported the port shut-down. The union leaders would try and discredit them and dismiss the occupy movement as "a bunch of kids, hippies" but because we had general support and people in the community saw the OWS movement actually making an impact in people's perceptions of inequality (remember before this the mainstream discussion of workers was over how entitled school teachers are) and solidarity and whatnot. People saw us as delivering where official liberal politics had let them down. The unstratigic and moralistic effort to constantly "escalate" irregardless of the forces and conditions around the movement, ultimately allowed the media propaganda to make inroads.

Of course the media are NEVER on our side, but their propaganda doesn't have a uniform effectiveness in convincing people. We do need to take into consideration how we are seen by the general population (well the ones that could potentially be on our side anyway) and decide if we need to try and counter something or just ignore it.


Or will it lead to less wildcat strikes? How about the general politicization of the working class? It is equally naive for one to think that this raises or lowers class consciousness.It's NAIVE considering HISTORICAL EVIDENCE that such things have no negative impact on the broader worker's movement.

So if Hitler burns a building and blames revolutionaries, he puts himself in power and destroys working class resistance. But if we actually had burned the reichtag, then there would have been worker's revolution?:confused:

[Ele'ill]

Yes Mari3L, I can guarantee that vandals on the railways, are when spotted invariably police are notified. Many are about 12yrs of age-no excuse, though maybe after these shenanigans they might claim to be freedom fighters. In point of fact I care as much about their fate as they care about mine and others.

Signals are safety equipment. They were brought in because of previous accidents on railways. Unions themselves have fought tooth and nail to bring in modern equipment. I say again those cowards put others in danger not themselves.
http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CEsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRailway _signal&ei=ZMjDT-C-H6bJmQX_8IitCg&usg=AFQjCNGZNhGLeyQT4E3TZzMaY8v8xYMAFg

Well what are these fools going to try next? Their terror methods wont work! Attempts to frighten people have had no success. Even IRA BOMBS IN OUR DEPOT JUST PRODUCED A SHRUG OF THE SHOULDERS. a STRING OF CURSES WHEN ASKED TO GO OUT AND SEARCH THE TRAINS. Whatever issues will be submerged. Common sense really.

42 replies to my email. No comment from me. All largely unprintable. None concerning the arms trade another 50 or so ex co workers, trade unionists family friends. More of the same...no doubt.

So linking me to a wiki entry on what railway signals are isn't demonstrating this alleged catastrophe that was almost imminent. The signals were off and the trains were stopped. I personally think this could have been done differently but the idea of a disruption I have no problems with in fact I love it.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

So linking me to a wiki entry on what railway signals are isn't demonstrating this alleged catastrophe that was almost imminent. The signals were off and the trains were stopped. I personally think this could have been done differently but the idea of a disruption I have no problems with in fact I love it.

Just because nobody was hurt, it doesn't mean that the action did not increase people's risk. Reducing the safety redundancies of a public transit system clearly threatens the safety of everybody on it, even if it does not necessarily lead to a disaster. If they are seeking to disrupt Capital, I would rather they pick a target or a strategy which does not have an adverse impact on the safety of workers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What I did suggest is that Dodger takes a nice moralist position on condemning sabotage actions based on a huge freaking assumption that lives were actually in danger and saying that he doesn't like people contributing to a threat to the life and safety of others....he is not so quick in condemning the contribution of those people in endangering the life and safety of yet again others by contributing directly to their demise....a nice little moralist vicious circle where he choses an arbitrary position without thought.If his position is that lives are in danger then yes it is a moralist position. But also arguing that not "escalating" not disrupting the flow of capital, irregardless of the preparedness of our class to fight in its own interests, is like "supporting capital" is also a moralist position.

So how do you gauge the morality of these actions. Is it the intent of the people doing the actions? Is it how many people are hurt? If the point is to disrupt the flow of capital, mass murder of workers would do that pretty well. Why is that not valid to the goal of disruption whereas other tactics are - is it only based on if workers get hurt or not - if so then it's a moralist and not a political position. If workers are striking, the workforce is conscious of the fact that it's them vs. the bosses and they sabotage rail equipment to prevent scabs or victory by the bosses, then it is a tactical and political consideration. Countering austerity with sabotage may be considered "resistance" but it's not class struggle or class war from our side.


Now....I do not need to mention the parallel between sabotage actions and executions during wartime by partisans and communist induvidual resistance members/groups and these kind of actions now do I? So people in France were not aware of the NAZI occupation, some of them thought they were actually Germans and the NAZIs had the interests of the whole country in mind but had to take do their polices because they had no choice.


Because: class war....it IS being waged. Yes and you have no interest apparently in organizing a democratic army that is willing and prepared to fight back.

If you want to talk military strategies, then maybe developing strategies and tactics that work should be in order. No military strategy book in the world has one page on it that says "always advance, don't consider the terrain or balance of forces, not engaging is giving into reformists".

So even on a "military" level, this specific action is beyond impotent and idiocy. It's frankly an insult to actual insurgencies for these individuals to pretend like their conditions are the same as people in Palestine or whatnot. We can organize strikes and do a lot of things much more effectively than people with IDF guns to their heads. If they had other means to fight back do you think they'd choose sacrificing their own bodies in a futile attempt to mount desperate resistance?

[dodger]

"The UK has an AWS signal installed since 1956 and continuously updated. When signals are disfunctional the train is put to an automatic stop within 2.75 seconds if the driver fails to acknowledge the warning sign and act accordingly."

Not true! Simply put not all trains or all signals have these equipment. Privatized rail companies have had to be brought, screaming poverty, into providing minimal safety equipment. Ladbrook Grove disaster highlighted problems.SPAD's

The rule book is complex...all to remove responsibility on to the shoulders of drivers.
The old old saying "shit always travels downhill!", remains the culture. The resignation, fought to the bitter end by the chairman of London Underground, after Kings Cross Fire, was deemed to be the last time that would happen . Each worker was issued with 10 folders with rules. Each week the issuance of new rules meant pulling out pages and putting new ones in. Each folder was the size of a family bible.

The issue of S.P.A.D.'S -PASSING SIGNALS AT DANGER WAS CONTINUALLY REVISED. The point you seem not to grasp is that Rules say certain signals must be passed--for the 'smooth' running of the service. A bulb might blow..no reason to wait 3/4 hours for it to be fixed. If no junction ahead it is safe to proceed at caution speed. A track might be broken , hence red signal. Passing 2 green signals means the train has passed the affected track. Protection is now human, possible error of judgement is possible. Signals and such equipment on the train as is provided is there for a purpose-to destroy it is vile. These Anarchists put themselves directly and antagonistically against rail workers and travellers. Sabotage of safety equipment is beyond the pale.

You may love it, the disruption-no doubt jolly japes- to others just one more unpleasant stress. Don't expect any love. Mari. Who are these people? So worthy of your admiration!

TWOT's= Total waste of time.

[PhoenixAsh]

AWS is installed in >90% of all trains in England. SPADS occur >95% of the time due to NOT following protocol or driver error....most of the SPADS are also related to ignoring stop signs by drivers.

AWS works as follows: it gives an alarm and the driver needs to acknowledge that alarm. If the alarm is ignored the train will be stopped 2.75 seconds after the driver fails to acknowledge it. Most SPADS in recent times however occured because the driver did acknowledge the warning signal but failed to take action....that is right....your precious drivers failed to take action to protect the travellers and thus caused several very serious incidents.

As a reaction TPWS is now standard in England....on most main lines. Of which this is one. The idea behind TPWS is that, if a train approaches a stop signal showing a danger aspect at too high a speed to enable it to stop at the signal, it will be forced to stop, regardless of any action (or inaction) by the driver.

So your argument that the sabotage increased the danger to passengers/travellers seems to be nonsensical. All the passenger has to do to increase his or her risk while using a train is board the damned thing since all of the accidents in recent years were caused by driver failure.

So you can scream your righteous indignation at the action...we will make sure next time we will be throwing softballs at the police lest we accidentally hit a passerby or bystander....

:rolleyes:

[PhoenixAsh]

In 1994 during student protests 10.000 students defied to city councils pre assigned route and blocked the main road through the city....causing a huge traffic chaos within the city and on the interstate around the city. After that they marched on to the station and several hundred (maybe two or three) of them climbed up the railways and blocked the station (which was a main transport hub in Holland through which almost 60% of the countries railways are connected). Rails were blocked by putting concrete sleepers in front of the trains or empty rails.

The blockade lasted for 5 hours....400.000 people were affected. The financial damage was high into the millions....for the public transportation network (bus services, trainservices etc) alone...and doesn't include industrial and trade traffic which would definately add another couple of million....rail traffic took three days to get reorganised.

Police didn't dare to charge...they had been waiting fully equiped for us after we blocked the main traffic artery. As soon as we occupied the station they didn't dare anymore: too much sharp stoned between the rail.

As a result concessions were made to students. Not enough and not all plans were halted...but it had effect.

[PhoenixAsh]

If his position is that lives are in danger then yes it is a moralist position. But also arguing that not "escalating" not disrupting the flow of capital, irregardless of the preparedness of our class to fight in its own interests, is like "supporting capital" is also a moralist position.

I am using the argument dodger gave in reverse to show him exactly how it plays out and what the logical consequences are of the argument he uses...


So how do you gauge the morality of these actions. Is it the intent of the people doing the actions? Is it how many people are hurt? If the point is to disrupt the flow of capital, mass murder of workers would do that pretty well. Why is that not valid to the goal of disruption whereas other tactics are - is it only based on if workers get hurt or not - if so then it's a moralist and not a political position. If workers are striking, the workforce is conscious of the fact that it's them vs. the bosses and they sabotage rail equipment to prevent scabs or victory by the bosses, then it is a tactical and political consideration. Countering austerity with sabotage may be considered "resistance" but it's not class struggle or class war from our side.

The discussion dodger is creating is bizar and based on a hypothetical assumption. No workers got physically hurt.

It is definately class war.

But theoretically Lenin is accreditted for having stated that any action which destabilizes the capitalist regime directly destructures the capitalist regime.



So people in France were not aware of the NAZI occupation, some of them thought they were actually Germans and the NAZIs had the interests of the whole country in mind but had to take do their polices because they had no choice.

They could have mass organised...according to some of the arguments here. Or they could have taken actions which would not increase the risk of workers.

The point being....workers are being oppressed. We are in a class war. The effects are quite real. People suffer from them everyday. There are no more choices. There is stuggle or no struggle.



Yes and you have no interest apparently in organizing a democratic army that is willing and prepared to fight back.

I don't?

That is quitre an assumption based on a discussion based around a very specific event. I refuse to condemn this specific action, I refuse to accept people who are willing to grass on people who take these kind of actions and I am ideologically supportive of insurrectionism....but where exactly did you base your conclusion on?

Now that said....where is your army? Because inspite of decades of people saying we need to organise this has failed to materialise. A debate topic in and off itself...and not something I think we should get into in this thread. But in the meantime of this organisation process...we do not need to sit idly by waiting till all of the sudden the workingclass decides to come round to our point of view.

Diversity of action is needed.


If you want to talk military strategies, then maybe developing strategies and tactics that work should be in order. No military strategy book in the world has one page on it that says "always advance, don't consider the terrain or balance of forces, not engaging is giving into reformists".

But all military tactics dictate that when you face a force that outnumbers you and is technologically advanced far beyond your capacities you resort to guerilla tactics and covert resistance. From the five rings to Clausewitz to modern day strategy.


So even on a "military" level, this specific action is beyond impotent and idiocy.

Is it? Because the damages are probably in the millions. Quite efficient for a simple action involving probably just a few induviduals



It's frankly an insult to actual insurgencies for these individuals to pretend like their conditions are the same as people in Palestine or whatnot.

This argument is an insult.


We can organize strikes and do a lot of things much more effectively than people with IDF guns to their heads. If they had other means to fight back do you think they'd choose sacrificing their own bodies in a futile attempt to mount desperate resistance?

Really? Tell me the last time a strike had effect in the UK...

Maybe you should talk to the miners during Tatcher.

[dodger]

YES-YES-YES--WE HAVE SIGNALS to help prevent driver error!! At last!! So why vandalize signal equipment? Wonder what next these railway vandals have in store for us. AWS on the train is not a scrap of good if not track side too. The system itself is frankly stone age.

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ladbroke%20grove%20disaster&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CE4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLadbrok e_Grove_rail_crash&ei=nqjET5uuF4ihmQWWhpTHCg&usg=AFQjCNGOuW5Rbv1RO8zLUrAbMsvrUybLAQ

Foolproof or failsafe? Your choice! Or it was......

[PhoenixAsh]

YES-YES-YES--WE HAVE SIGNALS to help prevent driver error!! At last!! So why vandalize signal equipment? Wonder what next these railway vandals have in store for us. AWS on the train is not a scrap of good if not track side too. The system itself is frankly stone age.

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ladbroke%20grove%20disaster&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CE4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLadbrok e_Grove_rail_crash&ei=nqjET5uuF4ihmQWWhpTHCg&usg=AFQjCNGOuW5Rbv1RO8zLUrAbMsvrUybLAQ

Foolproof or failsafe? Your choice! Or it was......

And hence TPWS became a new standard...

So what is your point in linking a 13 year old accident? One by the way that was directly responsible for a large number of improvements of safety protocol on the rail network.

YOu are undermining your own arguments here.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It is definately class war.It is a class assault, the vast majority of workers are only begining to comprehend this which is why it is important that our strategies revoleve around trying to create better conditions for our classes ability to fight.

On the pros and cons of this action, the possible negatives vastly outweigh any benefit to this at this time.

People keep denying that there is chance for blow-back or they argue that the state is always against us anyway. There's no argument on that second one, but repression is not at a constant level and so the actions of a small "elite" will impact all of us and the working class in general. Ask Muslims if the US cares what their actual beliefs or actions or whatever are.


But theoretically Lenin is accreditted for having stated that any action which destabilizes the capitalist regime directly destructures the capitalist regime. LOL. I must be slavishly obey every out-of-context quote because I identify with Trotskyism :rolleyes:. Even if this were his position I wouldn't agree with it - however it would be more understandable in the context of a pesant-majority country under a Tsar - hard for pesants to have a working class strategy you know.

But Lenin did not support induvidaul acts of terrorism as a way forward for the working class struggle:


Only new forms of the mass movement or the awakening of new sections of the masses to independent struggle really rouses a spirit of struggle and courage in all. Single combat, however, inasmuch as it remains single combat, has the immediate effect of simply creating a shortlived sensation, while indirectly it even leads to apathy and passive waiting for the next bout.


The point being....workers are being oppressed. We are in a class war. The effects are quite real. People suffer from them everyday. There are no more choices. There is stuggle or no struggle. No shit Danton, but the question is "How" and "Who".


Now that said....where is your army?Talk don't walk. "Will" doesn't make reality. There's been 30 years of a ruling class offensive that has left our class weak and disorganized. Things are changing now because people are resisting and anger is beginning to boil over which is why I emphasize that this time in history is the best shot in a long time to re-connect revolutionary politics into working class struggles in an organic way.


Because inspite of decades of people saying we need to organise this has failed to materialise. A debate topic in and off itself...and not something I think we should get into in this thread. But in the meantime of this organisation process...we do not need to sit idly by waiting till all of the sudden the workingclass decides to come round to our point of view. So you don't believe in working class self-liberation, just self-liberation that you think might benift the working class?

And how is trying to fight alongside workers who are in struggle or the process of radicalizing - sitting idly by?


Diversity of action is needed. You talk about things that have been tried and haven't worked and you think we need more of what our default position right now is anyway? Movements are pretty well used to a buch of seperate campaigns and actions. So when the US passed a law against sympathy strikes, it's because they were trying to make strikes more effective by forcing them to have separate actions by law?

In Occupy Oakland all the small clandestine direct-actions failed. What worked? When we had 10,000 people taking direct illegal action together - along with broader community support beyond that.

I think this ideology is an adaptation and internalization of the shitty conditions of the class for the last generation. We are marginal, so let's make a fetish out of small actions that don't need broad support. Radicals can't get a hearing in mass movements because of the Liberals - so let's just write off even trying to counter liberal strategies and do our own thing. Worker's aren't fighting at this momemnent, so I guess we'll have to liberate them for them like Radical-Liberal "terrorists" try and liberate trees and owls.


But all military tactics dictate that when you face a force that outnumbers you and is technologically advanced far beyond your capacities you resort to guerilla tactics and covert resistance. From the five rings to Clausewitz to modern day strategy. Workers outnumber. And we are the ones who "drive the tanks" so our power and our best strategy is to organize ourselves and take over.


Really? Tell me the last time a strike had effect in the UK...

Maybe you should talk to the miners during Tatcher.Oh there hasn't ever been a revolution either, better hang up my hat. So a strategy that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't for a HUGE VARIETY of reasons is somehow now totally worthless and inherently impossible? Yet you favor tactics that have fought capitalist production since wooden shoes by Luddites in 1500 and has NEVER by itself in the absense of larger movements done anything to hurt capitalism not to mention help workers as a class.

An Anarchist killed a US president. A Socialist blew up the LA Times building for being anti-union. What did this achieve? Mini-Red Scares, unconnected anarchist offices being raided random radicals and union militants being rounded up.

The Weathermen blew themselves up. "Bring the War Home" didn't build the radical movement or help workers to radicalize. These kinds of things - AT BEST - can be auxilaury in a much larger mass struggle. But in the absense of class consiousness, all this does is further isolate radicals and allow the ruling class to paint our interests as separate from building the power of the working class.


I refuse to condemn this specific action, I refuse to accept people who are willing to grass on people who take these kind of actions and I am ideologically supportive of insurrectionism.Fine don't condemn it. Just don't say that an action that doesn't help the workers movement and has more of a chance of helping the ruling class than actually hurting them is a favor.

As far as the "snitching" charge, well yeah radicals should stand by a "no snitching" to the authorities policy (with rare exceptions like with fascists or something) but just the fact that maybe a radical could potentially see things that way... don't you think regular working class people who have a mix of some pro-worker ideas but mixed with a lot of liberal or "common sense" ideas might call the cops or might see this as a threat to them? In that case aren't these actions alienating us from the people who can liberate society? If you don't see things that way, does that mean most workers are like "cops" and supporting capital... are workers part of the problem for insurrectionism?

[Jimmie Higgins]

In 1994 during student protests 10.000 students defied to city councils pre assigned route and blocked the main road through the city....causing a huge traffic chaos within the city and on the interstate around the city. After that they marched on to the station and several hundred (maybe two or three) of them climbed up the railways and blocked the station (which was a main transport hub in Holland through which almost 60% of the countries railways are connected). Rails were blocked by putting concrete sleepers in front of the trains or empty rails.

The significant aspect here being 10,000 acting together with other students aware (and probably largely supportive) of their cause. They took collective militant action.

[Anarchist Skinhead]

Hah, if you guys only spent so much effort on doing things on the streets as you spend writing very long theoretical pieces here...

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Well now I've seen everything. What'll they think of next, Primmies in Antarctica?:lol:

There's a strong primitivist presence in Mexico.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hah, if you guys only spent so much effort on doing things on the streets as you spend writing very long theoretical pieces here...That's why I post while on the night-shift at work :cool:

[PhoenixAsh]

It is a class assault, the vast majority of workers are only begining to comprehend this which is why it is important that our strategies revoleve around trying to create better conditions for our classes ability to fight.

No, that is your strategy. This is not an "if-or" situation but an "and-and".


On the pros and cons of this action, the possible negatives vastly outweigh any benefit to this at this time.

People keep denying that there is chance for blow-back or they argue that the state is always against us anyway. There's no argument on that second one, but repression is not at a constant level and so the actions of a small "elite" will impact all of us and the working class in general. Ask Muslims if the US cares what their actual beliefs or actions or whatever are.

I am not denying that there will be a blow out...I am just denying that this is relevant since this is going to happen anyway. England is already the number one country with the most CCTV camera's per citizen....the US already the one with the most imprisoned citizens per capita.

Repression is going to be increased regardless of the absence of radical acts....it has done so in the last few decades and especially in the wake of the Olympics. This has started even before this act and is unavoidable.

Interestingly enough the repression in the UK recently was stepped up in response to non violent protests like the occupy movement (PPRA for example)...not in response to radical acts. The same with s5 of POA which can stifle any form of free speech which is deemed to potentially cause alarm or distress. These are not directed or in response to radical acts...but rather free speech, organisation and peaceful protests.


LOL. I must be slavishly obey every out-of-context quote because I identify with Trotskyism :rolleyes:. Even if this were his position I wouldn't agree with it - however it would be more understandable in the context of a pesant-majority country under a Tsar - hard for pesants to have a working class strategy you know.

Right...except that the Bolshewiks mostly focussed on factory workers and organisation.

The quote shows that within the radical left most groups have very diverse opinions about what is effective tactic...but theoretically both Marx and Lenin designated acts of sabottage and direct action as part of the class struggle.


But Lenin did not support induvidaul acts of terrorism as a way forward for the working class struggle:

The question is what is induvidual and what is not. You act like this is the act of a lone induvidual instead of a political group/organisation acting within a larger stuggle.

Both Lenin and Marx rejected induvidual acts of sabotage as a substitution for broader class struggle but not within it. Now even Trotsky himself asked and called for acts of sabotage in Germany during WWI. And to further paraphrase Trotsky...sabotage is a-okay when done in the confines and context of a civil war. And that is exactly what this group is arguing.



No shit Danton, but the question is "How" and "Who".

Well...for now we see a huge absence of revolutionary mass movements...and your suggestion seems to be to do nothing except wave a few flags and talk a lot of talk instead of acting.


Talk don't walk. "Will" doesn't make reality. There's been 30 years of a ruling class offensive that has left our class weak and disorganized. Things are changing now because people are resisting and anger is beginning to boil over which is why I emphasize that this time in history is the best shot in a long time to re-connect revolutionary politics into working class struggles in an organic way.


Only 30 years? Come on now. It took 90 years for the first revolution to take place...and it hasn't let up since then. And in the last decades we have seen the rise and fall of many movements...we have seen crisis afterr crisis come and go...and no mass movement was created. And in the meantime the economic organisation of society became vastly different. We have a huge fragmentarisation of the working class and very little mass workplaces left because of the de-industrialisation.

The face of action needs to change as well.



So you don't believe in working class self-liberation, just self-liberation that you think might benift the working class?

Agian a rather weird assumption you are making there.



And how is trying to fight alongside workers who are in struggle or the process of radicalizing - sitting idly by?

I don't think you are fighting. I think you are talking.



You talk about things that have been tried and haven't worked and you think we need more of what our default position right now is anyway? Movements are pretty well used to a buch of seperate campaigns and actions. So when the US passed a law against sympathy strikes, it's because they were trying to make strikes more effective by forcing them to have separate actions by law?

Well...you are a Trotskyist...which theoretical basis obviously failed in praxis as well...more spectacularly than any other form of radical action and was even instrumental in giving the entire radical left a bad name for decades to come.

But I did notice a huge double standard here. When Anarchists sabotage something it damages the working class struggle....but when we talk about your strategy all of the sudden the working class are suddenly used to seperate campaigns and actions.


In Occupy Oakland all the small clandestine direct-actions failed. What worked? When we had 10,000 people taking direct illegal action together - along with broader community support beyond that.

Define failure in your eyes.



I think this ideology is an adaptation and internalization of the shitty conditions of the class for the last generation. We are marginal, so let's make a fetish out of small actions that don't need broad support. Radicals can't get a hearing in mass movements because of the Liberals - so let's just write off even trying to counter liberal strategies and do our own thing. Worker's aren't fighting at this momemnent, so I guess we'll have to liberate them for them like Radical-Liberal "terrorists" try and liberate trees and owls.


Your arguments are fastly becomming ridiculous. And your pedantic attitude about those who undertook the action as somehow outside the workingclass is baffling in its haughtyness.



Workers outnumber. And we are the ones who "drive the tanks" so our power and our best strategy is to organize ourselves and take over.[quote]

Soldiers aren't workers. Period. Cops aren't workers. Period.


[quote]Oh there hasn't ever been a revolution either, better hang up my hat. So a strategy that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't for a HUGE VARIETY of reasons is somehow now totally worthless and inherently impossible? Yet you favor tactics that have fought capitalist production since wooden shoes by Luddites in 1500 and has NEVER by itself in the absense of larger movements done anything to hurt capitalism not to mention help workers as a class.
[quote]

It definately hurts capitalism. If it didn't you wouldn't be crying about how repression will be stepped up because of this action.

All of your arguments are based on the completely stupid assumption that I am arguing one or the other. But instead you are the one arguing singularity of action.

[quote]An Anarchist killed a US president. A Socialist blew up the LA Times building for being anti-union. What did this achieve? Mini-Red Scares, unconnected anarchist offices being raided random radicals and union militants being rounded up.

Some workers organised a strike....leaders were arrested, several were fired and all were being violently repressed by the military. MI5 stepped up their information network on radicals and several were arrested over the months after. As a direct result of the strike more reprerssive labour laws were adopted and working class situation was put back several decades and STILL hasn't recovered.

So what the hell is your point?



The Weathermen blew themselves up. "Bring the War Home" didn't build the radical movement or help workers to radicalize. These kinds of things - AT BEST - can be auxilaury in a much larger mass struggle. But in the absense of class consiousness, all this does is further isolate radicals and allow the ruling class to paint our interests as separate from building the power of the working class.


What a load of nonsense. Like they don't do that even in the absense of radical action.


Fine don't condemn it. Just don't say that an action that doesn't help the workers movement and has more of a chance of helping the ruling class than actually hurting them is a favor.

yadayadayada

Where have I argued this?



As far as the "snitching" charge, well yeah radicals should stand by a "no snitching" to the authorities policy (with rare exceptions like with fascists or something) but just the fact that maybe a radical could potentially see things that way... don't you think regular working class people who have a mix of some pro-worker ideas but mixed with a lot of liberal or "common sense" ideas might call the cops or might see this as a threat to them? In that case aren't these actions alienating us from the people who can liberate society? If you don't see things that way, does that mean most workers are like "cops" and supporting capital... are workers part of the problem for insurrectionism?

You tell me...are scabs part of the problem for you guys?

[PhoenixAsh]

The significant aspect here being 10,000 acting together with other students aware (and probably largely supportive) of their cause. They took collective militant action.

Yeah and i doing so they did alianate the largest part of the population against them....

What does matter is that the action of sabotage does hurt the ruling class.

[Welshy]

I'm sorry, what website are we posting on, and where was this communique pulled from?

Answers:

Revleft
Anarchistnews/libcom/indymedia





You were saying?

We already went over this in the begining of the thread.

Hate to break it to you but that isn't circulating internally, since posting things on the internet tends to be safe from the larger public eye.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/25/anarchists-claim-railway-signalling-bristol


It described Tuesday's actions as guerrilla activity and said it had "no inhibition" about using such methods again. Characterising the Olympics as a "spectacle of wealth" in a time of austerity, it ended the statement saying it wanted "civil war" and that anarchy was "unavoidable".

And there were other mainstream news sources talking about this, so everything that The Boss was saying is very relevant and your attitude is still elitist.

[Desperado]

Cause we only support disrupting capital on that front? The point is to disrupt the flow of capital, not just the arms companies.

The workers will emancipate themselves....

Activists can't make them strike.

[Serge's Fist]

An article by a class struggle anarchist has gone up here: http://anticapitalists.org/2012/05/30/sabotage-in-bristol-does-it-help-the-movement/


In the early hours of Tuesday, 22 May members from the Informal Anarchist Federation/ International Revolutionary Front set about to disrupt services on Bristol’s rail network. They targeted two locations which were just outside of Patchway and Parson Street stations, lifting up protective concrete slabs and setting fire to the cables.

They subsequently issued a statement claiming responsibility for the action and explaining their motives why. The individuals chose these targets in the hope of disrupting the operations of some “military industry companies” such as Raytheon and Qinetiq, as well as a business park nearby and the “corporate hub of Bristol, near the Temple Meads Station”.

Their statement, posted on Indymedia explained “The purpose of [the] guerrilla attack is to spread the struggle into different territories and facets of life. Finance, judicial, communications, military and transport infastructure will continue to be targets of the new generation of urban low-intensity warfare” . The damage at Parson Street station was originally spotted by a train driver just past 4am and the second at Patchway was only discovered around 11:30am.

The group takes its name from the Italian Informal Anarchist Federation which sent parcel bombs to the Chilean, Swiss and Greek embassies in Rome, as well as recently kneecapping the CEO and nuclear engineer Roberto Adinolfi. In each of the first two cases, one mail room worker was injured by the parcel bomb and the third was intercepted and diffused. Furthermore, in Cambridge in October 2011, another group calling itself the Fire Cell claimed responsibility for the firebombing of a small car dealership stating that they hoped “the flames spread to the others, bringing a roaring inferno to the quiet leafy streets”. I suspect the Cambridge group modelled themselves after the Greek insurrectionary group Conspiracy of Cells of Fire which have claimed responsibility for attacks on banks and luxury cars.

These individuals have taken the most undesirable and elitist elements of anarchist actions and ideals in the past and are applying it in our time. They are not representative of all anarchists and take their influence from the Illegalist and Insurrectionary traditions of anarchism. This tradition sees the working class as too subdued by capitalism to be able to decide to act for themselves and therefore politically “conscious” individuals must take it upon themselves to agitate the rest of the class and threaten the everyday operations of capitalism.

I call this substitutionalism; the idea of substituting the working class for yourself as the most important force for social change. It’s a contradictory philosophy because if anarchism is reliant upon individuals taking self-responsibility for their lives, and therefore being able to take responsibility for securing their own freedoms, how is this achievable when workers are seen as incapable of taking self-action to guarantee this? This would explain the seeming disdain for sections of the working class by the members of the Informal Anarchist Federation and the Fire Cell in Cambridge.

The Bristol group in its communiqué asserted that “the potential spread of such blockages in general poses a significant problem for the flow of commodities and for making sure that labour exploitation arrives on time, key concerns for transnational capitalism”. Whilst it is indisputable that capital relies on a constant and punctual supply of labour in order to continue its operations, disrupting this flow when you are effectively an outsider will do nothing to resolve the issue, especially when you consider that unfortunately we still rely on our ability to sell our labour in order to survive. Rather than making attempts at connecting with the rest of our class and encouraging them to take matters into their own hands in their own workplaces and communities, it ends up alienating many workers who, rightly so, see this kind of action as impeding on their livelihoods. I also won’t forget to mention how dangerous this kind of action is to the lives of those workers affected themselves!

This kind of action is out of place in the context of the social situation of our time. Whilst this tactic may be beneficial in some hypothetical revolutionary situation, we are hardly in one right now and continuing these kinds of attacks will not entice other workers to oppose their conditions under capitalism any time soon. Luckily not all anarchists encourage this type of activity, the Anarchist Federation, an anarchist-communist organisation in Britain has recently released a statement on its website criticising the shooting of the nuclear executive by the Italian Informal Anarchist Federation, which unfortunately shares the same acronym as the British Anarchist Federation’s sister organisation, the Federation of Italian Anarchists.

The point is that capitalism itself is inherently contradictory, in its pursuit of higher profits it will naturally drive down wages, ignore health and safety concerns in the workplace, increase prices, reduce the quality of commodities and fire workers. Our efforts would be better placed encouraging other workers to take industrial action into their own hands rather than conducting these juvenile and ultimately futile actions. Other workers will not be encouraged to take militant action because of these events, capitalism is the best agitator for our cause because of its own inherent nature and the way in which it treats the working class.

Get over yourselves.

[PhoenixAsh]

I find it rather odd that an anarcho-communist takes this position since insurrectionism and anarcho-communism developed from each other and have parallel motivations within anti-statism and anti-syndicalism.

It is at the very least also a damned shame that the author seems to attribute vanguardist motivations to insurrectionists by stating that they see the working class as too subdued by capital and think of themselves as the "political conscious". This is a complete failure to understand insurrectionism which neither sees itself as vanguardist nor as politically conscious but rather as part of the working class and the class struggle. Insurrectionism applies the theory that active resistance by informal task oriented cooperations by taking small and easilly repeatable action which will by the nature of propaganda of the deed create repetition by others.

Rather than, as the author falsely claims, seeing workers as incapable of taking self-action insurrectionism is the ultimate "everybody is capable of resistance" movement. Insurrectionism ultimately is the only movement which directly puts the struggle for freedom in the induviduals own hands. So the authors claimed disdain for the working class from insurrectionists seems to be due to his failure to correctly understand insurrectionist theory and motivations.

As for the tactical notion of enticing workers to take action for themselves. How is this different from the vision of insurrectionists? The ultimate goal of insurrectionist and non-insurrectionist anarchists is to get workers to act for themselves. I am not entirely sure how anarchists persuading other workers to take action for themselves are not thinking of themselves as "politically conscious" nor how this can not be considered agitation. These arguments put foreward by the author make no sense.

Lets also not forget that you had decades to accomplish what you claim to be the better tactic. Yet we see a large absence of widespread workers action and groups of workers taking non-situational actions against capitalism and the working class is more fragmentarised than ever before in history. We won't be seeing a revolutionary situation any time soon either when we follow the tactic of workplace agitation.

I also fail to see how in a similar situation where transport is disrupted by a strike other workers depending on that transportation do not feel threatened in their livelyhood on which they depend....seeing as the end result is the same: they can't go to the work on which they depend for survival. Again this argument is poorly thought through. Now I am not entirely sure how the situation is in the UK but here the working class is equally alienated and irritated by strikes.

What also strikes me is the fact that the author seems to argue for "waiting" till capitalism agitates the working class itself by making their conditions unbearable so that they are more easilly persuaded to take action. In the meantime we play the waiting game and talk, talk, talk. It doesn't work that way. Capitalism will ultimately evolve itself into bonapartism to circumvent revolution by stepping up repression. Something which is increasingly happening in the UK in the last decades. Yet we do not see the working class emerging. Is this to be attributed to the working class or to the state of the radical left within the UK? How can we not resist and not take action when youth unemployment is rising to 25%, how can we not take action when we are faced with poverty, starvation, reduced lifespan, bad healthcare and stringent austerity measures to bail out capitalists? There is a class war waging and we are losing.

I am not a big fan of singular tactics. I see value in all kinds of different tactics within the current system. My tactics may not be yours. Diversity of tactics is needed. Condemning acts of revolutionary leftists on the grounds of opposing ideological points is fine but using pedantic attitudes by labelling the actions of comrades as jevenile and adding snide remarks like "get over yourselves" seems to be rather self defeating and definately not conductive in creating a broad based dialogue. Especially when you have your facts wrong.

[Welshy]

Lets also not forget that you had decades to accomplish what you claim to be the better tactic. Yet we see a large absence of widespread workers action and groups of workers taking non-situational actions against capitalism and the working class is more fragmentarised than ever before in history. We won't be seeing a revolutionary situation any time soon either when we follow the tactic of workplace agitation.

And we have insurrectionist activity since the birth of anarchism and that has been even less successful than the tactic of workplace agitation (which saying just workplace agitation is an oversimplification).



I also fail to see how in a similar situation where transport is disrupted by a strike other workers depending on that transportation do not feel threatened in their livelyhood on which they depend....seeing as the end result is the same: they can't go to the work on which they depend for survival. Again this argument is poorly thought through. Now I am not entirely sure how the situation is in the UK but here the working class is equally alienated and irritated by strikes.

Because when you have workers on strike blocking transportation, while you will have people who will get annoyed, you do have a group of people who you can look at and relate to as you may be going through similar struggles yourself. Just look at the Wisconsin protests. Those workers were disruptive at points but solidarity grew for them. Look at the student strike in Quebec, that has been disruptive but people are standing in solidarity with them.

The issue with the insurrectionist act is that because it is being done by this small covert group that uses very specialized and scary (as far as mainstream usage of the words being used), people will associate it with it being an outside force attacking them rather than a group trying to encourage action. So if are going to sabotage anything, organize from inside the workers there so you get rid of this feeling of being attacked.

[PhoenixAsh]

And we have insurrectionist activity since the birth of anarchism and that has been even less successful than the tactic of workplace agitation (which saying just workplace agitation is an oversimplification).

Really? What do you base this on?

What points of measuring succes do you use?

Because the way I see it...people like Malatesta drew quite a crowd tens and even hundreds of thousands back when they were insurrectionists and because of their insurrectionism.

Ravachol managed to become well published in his own defence in the mainstream media directly influencing hundreds of thousands of French workers,

Galleani was an effective and passionate public speaker active during strikes advocating against situational action and for advancing revolutionary action. He also ran a popular anarchist newsletter.

Bonanno was a writer who wrote quite a few books on anarchist ideolog and theory.

So basically I am not at all sure what you base your argument on that insurrectionism is unsuccesful.




Because when you have workers on strike blocking transportation, while you will have people who will get annoyed, you do have a group of people who you can look at and relate to as you may be going through similar struggles yourself. Just look at the Wisconsin protests. Those workers were disruptive at points but solidarity grew for them. Look at the student strike in Quebec, that has been disruptive but people are standing in solidarity with them.

And none of these actions were communist in nature and all were situational....and from none of these actions a broader sustained mass movement was created.

The reason why the strikes in Wisconsin was broadly supported was because the political nature of the reasons for the strike and the fact that it was a collision manipulated by the democratic party against the republicans. People who were not republicann or anti-republican were naturally supportive of thestrike because the target were the republican politicians. This is something entirely different in nature than workers striking against their bosses. It wasn't workers against their companies....it was workers against legislative bodies.



The issue with the insurrectionist act is that because it is being done by this small covert group that uses very specialized and scary (as far as mainstream usage of the words being used), people will associate it with it being an outside force attacking them rather than a group trying to encourage action. So if are going to sabotage anything, organize from inside the workers there so you get rid of this feeling of being attacked.

I do not think that will work given the fact that you can't even get them to strike...what gives you the idea that they would participate in sabotage?

[Welshy]

Really? What do you base this on?

What points of measuring succes do you use?

My definition of success for this was the one you used in the part that I quoted. As any communist should know you can't make a revolutionary situation, but outside a revolutionary situation individualistic acts of insurrection like this action is going to be less successful than trying to organize work stoppages or sabotages (both of which have successfully taken place in the US and Poland in recent years, two places that have pretty low class struggle).



Because the way I see it...people like Malatesta drew quite a crowd tens and even hundreds of thousands back when they were insurrectionists and because of their insurrectionism.

Congratulations. The KKE can easily get a hundred thousand or more at all of their larger rallies and they are do the work place agitation.



Ravachol managed to become well published in his own defence in the mainstream media directly influencing hundreds of thousands of French workers,

That's nice but that's not because some individualistic insurrectionist activity.



Galleani was an effective and passionate public speaker active during strikes advocating against situational action and for advancing revolutionary action. He also ran a popular anarchist newsletter.

I'm not arguing against that type of activity. I'm arguing against the individualistic and voluntaristic actions being argued for in this thread.



Bonanno was a writer who wrote quite a few books on anarchist ideolog and theory.

I don't even know how this is a success as every political group is capable of doing this.



And none of these actions were communist in nature and all were situational....and from none of these actions a broader sustained mass movement was created.

There isn't anything inherently communist about this sabotage. It may have communist rhetoric but as we all know rhetoric means shit. There hasn't been enough time to see if this action will be generalized yet, but based on the other stuff the IAF and Conspiracy of Cells of Fire have done it probably won't be. Also the Student Strike is still going on and its support has spread and sections of those involved are being radicalized so we will have to wait to see what comes from that. Not that I'm holding my breath.



The reason why the strikes in Wisconsin was broadly supported was because the political nature of the reasons for the strike and the fact that it was a collision manipulated by the democratic party against the republicans. People who were not republicann or anti-republican were naturally supportive of thestrike because the target were the republican politicians. This is something entirely different in nature than workers striking against their bosses. It wasn't workers against their companies....it was workers against legislative bodies.

While I don't entirely disagree with you here, it wasn't completely workers against legislature as it was fairly well known that private interests were a big part of why the attacks were happening. The actions taken were workers against legislature though (I think that's what you meant). But my reason for using this as an example wasn't to say this is a perfect example, but away to show a case of something disruptive that had wider support.

Also I want to make it clear that I'm not against making use of insurrectionist actions but I have a problem when its done by a small group acting outside side of the working class. Yes they were acting outside of the working class no matter how much they want to argue otherwise. They are just like every other left group in that respect.




I do not think that will work given the fact that you can't even get them to strike...what gives you the idea that they would participate in sabotage?

Who says you can't get them to strike? Sure it will be a lot of hard work, but to say you can't get them to strike requires a lot of assumptions and view that the working class is largely passive which is the exact attitude we are criticizing insurrectionist groups for and you have been arguing that they don't have.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

"burn banks, or shoot executives, or burn Wal-Mart"

These are symbolic actions, they serve to warn that the anarchists are here to stay.
The masses are raised through the teaching of anarchism, only if a majority is convinced to anarchism can an anarchist revolution work.

[human strike]

Wow. This was very close to where I live. VERY close. I had no idea there were other Anarchists in my area...

Are you serious? Bristol has one of the most active anarchist scenes in Britain.

[Tim Finnegan]

So there's about six of them?






http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/mischief.gif

[PhoenixAsh]

My definition of success for this was the one you used in the part that I quoted. As any communist should know you can't make a revolutionary situation, but outside a revolutionary situation individualistic acts of insurrection like this action is going to be less successful than trying to organize work stoppages or sabotages (both of which have successfully taken place in the US and Poland in recent years, two places that have pretty low class struggle).

No...you stated it was less succesful. I was asking what your qualifications were to state that insurrectionism is less succesful than creating a mass movement.



Congratulations. The KKE can easily get a hundred thousand or more at all of their larger rallies and they are do the work place agitation.

And yet...no revolution.



That's nice but that's not because some individualistic insurrectionist activity.

Actually he was quite popular because of his insurrectionist activity...and because of that insurrectionist activity he managed to reach millions.


I'm not arguing against that type of activity. I'm arguing against the individualistic and voluntaristic actions being argued for in this thread.

Galleani was an insurrectionist heavilly involved in these kind or
induvidualistic and voluntaristic actions.

In fact...all of the people I mentioned were insurrectionists and illegalists.



I don't even know how this is a success as every political group is capable of doing this.

Again....insurrectionists who manage to influence on a large scale.


There isn't anything inherently communist about this sabotage. It may have communist rhetoric but as we all know rhetoric means shit. There hasn't been enough time to see if this action will be generalized yet, but based on the other stuff the IAF and Conspiracy of Cells of Fire have done it probably won't be. Also the Student Strike is still going on and its support has spread and sections of those involved are being radicalized so we will have to wait to see what comes from that. Not that I'm holding my breath.


...fine....so far both type of actions seem to be as usefull as the other.



While I don't entirely disagree with you here, it wasn't completely workers against legislature as it was fairly well known that private interests were a big part of why the attacks were happening. The actions taken were workers against legislature though (I think that's what you meant). But my reason for using this as an example wasn't to say this is a perfect example, but away to show a case of something disruptive that had wider support.

True. On the other hand what makes you think these are not workers?

And how succesful were these strikes and protests anyway?



Also I want to make it clear that I'm not against making use of insurrectionist actions but I have a problem when its done by a small group acting outside side of the working class. Yes they were acting outside of the working class no matter how much they want to argue otherwise. They are just like every other left group in that respect.

Why are they outside the working class?




Who says you can't get them to strike? Sure it will be a lot of hard work, but to say you can't get them to strike requires a lot of assumptions and view that the working class is largely passive which is the exact attitude we are criticizing insurrectionist groups for and you have been arguing that they don't have.

My point was/is: why aren't you trying?

[The Douche]

I think there are some relevant quotes from this text by the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire. While the CCF is not the same as the IAF, they certainly consider themselves comrades. http://325.nostate.net/?p=2870

Quotes: (all emphasis original)


We believe that the concept of the anarchist urban guerrilla isn’t a separate identity one assumes only while engaging in armed attack. Rather, we feel it’s a matter of merging each person’s private and public life in the context of total liberation. We aren’t anarchists only when we throw a Molotov at a riot police van, carry out expropriations, or plant an explosive device. We’re also anarchists when we talk to our friends, take care of our comrades, have fun, and fall in love.

So here we say the rejection of the notion that communism will emerge just from the armed struggle. And they acknowledge the necessity and validity in participating in the broader radical millieu.


Nevertheless, we don’t consider the expropriation of banks to be a prerequisite for someone’s participation in the new guerrilla war. There is one revolution, but there are thousands of ways in which one can take revolutionary action. Other comrades might choose to carry out collective expropriations from the temples of consumerism (supermarkets, shopping malls) in order to individually recover what’s been “stolen” and use those things to meet each person’s material needs, thereby avoiding having to say “good morning” to a boss or take orders from some superior. Still others might participate in grassroots unions, keeping their conscience honed—like a sharp knife—for the war that finally abolishes every form of work that enriches the bosses while impoverishing our dignity.

Look at that, they even acknowledge participation in unions and involvement in broad movements as revolutionary action!


We feel the same way about voluntarily “disappearing” to go underground. The fetishization of illegalism doesn’t inspire us. We want everyone to act in accordance with their needs and desires. Each choice naturally has its own qualities and virtues as well as its disadvantages

This is a pretty clear rejection of the ideas of focoism or the accusation that the new anarchist guerrillas see themselves as any sort of leadership/vanguard.




There is more to be read if you really want to understand the theoretical basis for this new trend of anarchist urban guerrillas, and the critique them as if they are like the RAF or weathermen is really to build a strawman. They are attempting to make a synthesis of illegalist anarchism (which seeks autonomy through crime and seeks to support broad struggles through crime) and communism (as a living experience, not just a form of social organization).

[Welshy]

No...you stated it was less succesful. I was asking what your qualifications were to state that insurrectionism is less succesful than creating a mass movement.


You can't create a mass movement. The conditions have to be right for those to come into existence. If it was the case that you could create a mass movement then both tendency would be failures as it has been almost 200 years of both and there has been nothing. However when the conditions have been right, more mass movements and revolutions were being led by Marxists rather than Insurrectionists.




And yet...no revolution.
There hasn't been any revolution there either despite the riots and work of the insurrectionist. But this brings up a point that I've been arguing to my comrades, strikes are insufficient. In fact in the way they have been used in Greece they seem very insufficient. This is one of those cases where I would arguing insurrectionist tactics would probably be needed to get the ball rolling. However it can't be something started by a small group of people like this, it needs to be a larger and more generalized action from the beginning.





Actually he was quite popular because of his insurrectionist activity...and because of that insurrectionist activity he managed to reach millions.



Galleani was an insurrectionist heavilly involved in these kind or
induvidualistic and voluntaristic actions.

In fact...all of the people I mentioned were insurrectionists and illegalists.



Again....insurrectionists who manage to influence on a large scale.
Fair enough.



...fine....so far both type of actions seem to be as usefull as the other.
I don't know if we can say they will be as useful as the other. We would have to wait for the student strike to be over to see if a significant number of people get radicalized because of it. It is very possible that no significant number of people will radicalize. Has a significant number of people be radicalized by insurrectionist activity with in recent history? If you have anything to show this, I would gladly concede.




True. On the other hand what makes you think these are not workers? I'm not saying they aren't workers, but when they are doing these actions people are not seeing them as workers but as secretive saboteurs who were trying to endanger peoples lives. I think this action would have been more meaningful had it been done by the workers who work on those railways and they made statement against the capitalist wars.



And how succesful were these strikes and protests anyway?
As I stated above when talking about greece, I don't think strikes are sufficient at least not anymore and (I didn't mention this)but I think protests are often just one giant circle jerk. But the point is that they are more capable of gaining larger support when they are disruptive than when you have a small group of individuals doing it. I guess what I'm arguing here is that the insurrectionists should try to make their actions more generalized from the beginning instead of doing it in small groups and hoping it becomes generalized.




Why are they outside the working class?
Because they are group that is trying to act up on the working class in order to cause more generalized insurrectionist activity. Any group that tries to act up on the working class to make it do something exists outside of the working class and this includes every other left group or tendency. So it's not so much a criticism of the insurrectionists as much as it is a sign of our times, but also it goes with what I was saying about the action needing to come from the rail workers themselves. If it turns out that these people are people who work on the railways in Bristol I will take back this part of the criticism.

EDIT: Check out the thread on Spanish miners clashing with police. I like that type of action.

[Welshy]

Thank you for the link and the quotes!







This is a pretty clear rejection of the ideas of focoism or the accusation that the new anarchist guerrillas see themselves as any sort of leadership/vanguard.


It's nice that they don't see themselves as leadership or a vanguard and reject focoism, but what I am curious about is how do they differ in practice? Also I'm not arguing against vanguardism here, as I support the idea of vanguard (in the broader usage of the term). But these actions do seem, at least to an outsider, at least somewhat like an urban focoism.





There is more to be read if you really want to understand the theoretical basis for this new trend of anarchist urban guerrillas, and the critique them as if they are like the RAF or weathermen is really to build a strawman. They are attempting to make a synthesis of illegalist anarchism (which seeks autonomy through crime and seeks to support broad struggles through crime) and communism (as a living experience, not just a form of social organization).

I mentioned them because those are examples of past active insurrectionist groups (not anarchist, but my argument isn't again anarchism itself). Also I would like to say that I like the idea behind the insurrectionist as I think the tactics the left has been using have gotten old and stale and are excessively social democratic, but my issue is that I'm seeing too much individualistic action and nothing generalized developing from it.

[The Douche]

It's nice that they don't see themselves as leadership or a vanguard and reject focoism, but what I am curious about is how do they differ in practice? Also I'm not arguing against vanguardism here, as I support the idea of vanguard (in the broader usage of the term). But these actions do seem, at least to an outsider, at least somewhat like an urban focoism.

If you think these actions are focoist, then you just don't understand what focoism is. The anarchist guerrillas are making no attempt to play any sort of leadership role, or direct the struggle in any particular way, they are taking action as individuals or groups of individuals in an attempt to confront capital, and in an attempt to live lives with as much autonomy as possible. The focoists carry out their strategy (which also includes organizing with mass movements, which the anarchist guerrillas do not) with the intention of overthrowing the state and establishing their rule, obviously these people aren't interested in that.


but my issue is that I'm seeing too much individualistic action and nothing generalized developing from it.

I don't think they necessarily expect it to become all that generalized (but I mean, there have been attacks all over continental europe, now the UK, Greece, Russia, Asia etc).


I think that virtually everybody is looking at this new wave of guerrillas through the wrong historical lense. They are more accurately compared to the illegalists than to the armed struggle groups. The CCF, for instance, is pretty firmly rooted in individualist anarchism.

[GerrardWinstanley]

Have these anarchists plans to do this again? Only this time as a protest at Britain's horrifically poor train services?

I know that sounds a bit parochial compared to ecological distruction, but they really are that bad. Maybe the anarchists could toss some dead leaves on the line and see how many services it will disrupt just to make a point?