4/30 SF anti-cap march discussion

[Ele'ill]

Just saw this vid posted on the past April 30th actions in Oakland and thought it was relevant cause most of us like seeing shit get fucked up.

kUZfMlQg-bg

[Tabarnack]

And not a cop to be seen, I wonder why :rolleyes:

The black bloc message being look what happens when there is "No more cops in our community" as they destroy everything in sight...

[ВАЛТЕР]

Just saw this vid posted on the past April 30th actions in Oakland and thought it was relevant cause most of us like seeing shit get fucked up.

kUZfMlQg-bg


Lol at the comments on the youtube video calling them terrorists and whatnot. Some going as far as blaming Obama for this lol.

[Ele'ill]

And not a cop to be seen, I wonder why :rolleyes:

Simply by viewing the video you can see a police van present, likely other cruisers behind it although obviously not when this first started. It takes the police a long time to respond to things, all things, people dying, fires etc. If you were familiar with these nocturnal smash actions you'd realize that the debris in the street (like dumpsters and dozens of iron tables and chairs) stops vehicles. Often, when bicycle cops are present, they have to stop and remove the debris. Since they weren't present, the cops in the van probably had to get out, or perhaps they simply went down another side street. At these marches/actions the cops are afraid to get too close. The cops in the stations often opt to stay inside rather than walking out into the unknown. These types of marches twist and turn and the cops following have no idea where they're gonna go to next, these marches move quickly.


The black bloc message being look what happens when there is "No more cops in our community" as they destroy everything in sight...

I'll elaborate. Not 'everything in sight' but specific stuff sure.

[Tabarnack]

Simply by viewing the video you can see a police van present, likely other cruisers behind it although obviously not when this first started. It takes the police a long time to respond to things, all things, people dying, fires etc. If you were familiar with these nocturnal smash actions you'd realize that the debris in the street (like dumpsters and dozens of iron tables and chairs) stops vehicles. Often, when bicycle cops are present, they have to stop and remove the debris. Since they weren't present, the cops in the van probably had to get out, or perhaps they simply went down another side street. At these marches/actions the cops are afraid to get too close. The cops in the stations often opt to stay inside rather than walking out into the unknown. These types of marches twist and turn and the cops following have no idea where they're gonna go to next, these marches move quickly.

The black bloc rarely get arrested but the police have the resources the time and budget to frame innocent kids of terrorism as we have seen lately, but yeah the black bloc is an impenetrable organization...:rolleyes:

The black bloc chanted non stop "No cops in our community" and proceeded to destroy everything in sight for no reason, what is the message here ?

In case you still don't get it...

The message is, this is what happens when there is "no cops in our community".

[Ele'ill]

The black bloc rarely get arrested but the police have the resources the time and budget to frame innocent kids of terrorism as we have seen lately, but yeah the black bloc is an impenetrable organization...:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: The black bloc isn't an organization it's an affinity group oriented tactic which makes it more difficult to 'infiltrate'. When the state does get lucky there are heavy charges all around. You'll see raids on both anarchists as well as anti-war peace activists and you'll see steep charges against both. One thing that intelligence and cops do like to do is divide movements and I think this rabid resentment and borderline paranoid conspiracy theory analysis of militant left actions is more suspect as agent provocation than the alleged evidence of 'no cops n e where' and one of my favorites that's been latched onto 'look! black boots!'


The black bloc chanted non stop "No cops in our community" and proceeded to destroy everything in sight for no reason, what is the message here ? In case you still don't get it...

The message is, this is what happens when there is "no cops in our community".

I'm gonna go way out here and point to an opposition to cops, capital, capitalism and rather than attack 'lol everything in sight' it was decided upon specific targets in a wealthy area of that city. What happened when there weren't cops in that community, enforcing gentrification, wealth division, protecting capital so on is that the community rose up and shattered that which has afflicted them.

[Paulappaul]

The black bloc chanted non stop "No cops in our community" and proceeded to destroy everything in sight for no reason, what is the message here ?

In case you still don't get it...


I'll elaborate. Not 'everything in sight' but specific stuff sure.

Meaning that the targets were aganist Capital and Privilege which Police protect. It wasn't like the Black Bloc was in some poor neighborhood, contrary that neighborhood is known for its wealth and you can see that by the restaurants, cars, small police stations, etc. and generally just the people.


The black bloc rarely get arrested

that's a joke.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Just saw this vid posted on the past April 30th actions in Oakland and thought it was relevant cause most of us like seeing shit get fucked up.

kUZfMlQg-bg

This was in San Francisco the day before May-Day, not Oakland. It is also in an immigrant community regularly targeted by police because of a gentrification process going on. I was walking here one day and a cop pulled onto the curb, jumped out of his car and grabbed a homeless man by the neck because he was selling books and videos on the street. The cop yelled at him: "I told you to move-on before and if I have to do it again, they'll find your fucking head in a garbage can".

Most of the immigrants in this area blame the white people moving in rather than seeing this as a huge process of gentrification that's the result of capitalism and profit-developments, not consumers (the white people looking for affordable hosing in S.F.). Most of the white people are young and don't have much money, but it's the fancy yuppie stores and new developers who are the real gentrifies.

So these restaurants full of yuppies got spooked and some got some windows smashed. What did that accomplish? Do the immigrants now see white radicals fighting for their causes or just bringing more heat down on the community? Does anyone understand anarchism better or are even sympathetic people more likely to buy into the strawman of "anarchism=chaos". What did this action do for anyone but the participants and the media who once again got to not talk about the daily violence of the system but a few minutes of window-smashing by idiots who treat revolution as a fashion. Yes this action probably did rally some working class people - rallied them right back into the arms of the Democrats and propaganda in the media.

A black kid was killed by Oakland Police two weeks ago and the family is organizing a coalition but are trying to prevent white radicals from participating because they are afraid that people not directly involved will use their family tradgety as an excuse to smashy-smashy.

Thanks a lot, now we can say that not only are these kinds of things useless for the class struggle, but they are DETRIMENTAL to building solidarity and real working class fight-back.

[Paulappaul]

Do the immigrants now see white radicals fighting for their causes or just bringing more heat down on the community?Why the fuck do you assume these are "white radicals"? I'm not going to claim I know what immigrants think, because I ain't one. My experience talking with immigrants is that they recognize in America, they have no community. Don't claim that they do and don't suppose that smashing a window = heat coming down on the immigrant community.


Does anyone understand anarchism better or are even sympathetic people more likely to buy into the strawman of "anarchism=chaos". I don't want to suppose everyone in a Black Bloc is Anarchist, but if the media portrays it that way, we know Anarchism is a fighting ideology that it stands aganist wealth and privilege and for that alone it gets alot of sympathy.


A black kid was killed by Oakland Police two weeks ago and the family is organizing a coalition but are trying to prevent white radicals from participating because they are afraid that people not directly involved will use their family tradgety as an excuse to smashy-smashy.Funny, we have the EXACT OPPOSITE example in Portland where the radical and anarchist community made grassroots connections to the "black community" before undertaking black bloc, unpermitted marches, etc. and those connections have stayed firm and have transcended marches into liberating homes.

It's the difference between co-opting a "community" and building community in a Anarchist direction. The later for which I am all for, the former which is shit.


Thanks a lot, now we can say that not only are these kinds of things useless for the class struggle, but they are DETRIMENTAL to building solidarity and real working class fight-back. cry me a river. this line has gotten really old in face of international examples where anarchists utilizing black bloc tactics have saved and escalated movements.

[Ele'ill]

This was in San Francisco the day before May-Day, not Oakland.

Oh yeah, sorry. I think I said Oakland cause of this thread title, anyways..



Do the immigrants now see white radicals fighting for their causes or just bringing more heat down on the community?

This kind of goes into the 'was it just white people in the bloc' and 'was it actually anybody from that immediate community' and I can't answer that because I wasn't there but I can say from my experiences in other places that the answers are yes it wasn't just white people, there were immigrants, people from that immediate community present.



Does anyone understand anarchism better or are even sympathetic people more likely to buy into the strawman of "anarchism=chaos". What did this action do for anyone but the participants and the media who once again got to not talk about the daily violence of the system but a few minutes of window-smashing by idiots who treat revolution as a fashion.

Who's concerned with fashion, those people trying to 'look' good by State standards or those acting in the middle of the night in black with masks?




Yes this action probably did rally some working class people - rallied them right back into the arms of the Democrats and propaganda in the media.

and their unions


A black kid was killed by Oakland Police two weeks ago and the family is organizing a coalition but are trying to prevent white radicals from participating because they are afraid that people not directly involved will use their family tradgety as an excuse to smashy-smashy.

Pretty much the post above mine covers this as well. oops *and what if people who aren't in that immediate family have shared similar experiences and are tired of living under violence and the threat of violence and want to smashy smashy


Thanks a lot, now we can say that not only are these kinds of things useless for the class struggle, but they are DETRIMENTAL to building real working class fight-back.

I dunno it's 2012 and I think people are pretty frustrated at inadequacies within conventional leftist activities and don't really see 30 people fucking up a bank to be an excuse as to why things still suck.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Just tell me what does this concretely accomplish in regards to working class people learning to organize themselves and take on the ruling class?


Funny, we have the EXACT OPPOSITE example in Portland where the radical and anarchist community made grassroots connections to the "black community" before undertaking black bloc, unpermitted marches, etc. and those connections have stayed firm and have transcended marches into liberating homes. WTF? Great. This is exactly what I'm argueing - do this, fantastic, this is the right direction. Now show me where the fuck in the video these grassroots connections were being made.

For some of you this is identity - Ooh, someone talking shit about some group of anarchists. Who gives a fuck. I want to see from anyone things that to the best of my ability to understand things, will help the class struggle and help workers develop their own independent and conscious movements. The IWW have the right idea even if I don't agree with them on everything, many of the anarchist activists in the Occupy movements are trying to bridge into the community. But on the other hand there seem to also be many who think that by naming the camp after "Oscar Grant" that the work is done, if they issue a statement about how this or that action is in solidarity with workers, then it's true. All of this is bullshit, much of it is sympathetic, but it shows the immaturity of the radical movement in world after two generations of being held back by Stalinism and all these mutant non-working class power based ideologies.


Pretty much the post above mine covers this as well. oops *and what if people who aren't in that immediate family have shared similar experiences and are tired of living under violence and the threat of violence and want to smashy smashyAnd what if Jack Shit marries Mother Fuck? I gave you a real-life example of how this is effecting poltics and backfireing on the movement and you offer up "What-ifs". What if the class struggle magically turns into a pony.

I don't have a problem if there's an organic riot, but usually people haven't made shilds out of garbage cans or developed weak-ass ideological justifications for it in advance. The other thing is riots are an expression of class anger, but never achieve anything concrete unless there is organization pre-existing that can then champion that riot and build something more sustained out of it. There were something like 300 large-scale riots in the US in the mid and late 60s... and you think these little toy-insurrectionaries are achieving anything at all!

If a picket is ordered by judges to disband and strikers oppose this and riot when the police attack them - fantastic, this is people organized and taking a conscious stand. If the government essentially allows police to get away with brutalizing oppressed communities and people spontaneously fight back, then great, this is an expression of mass anger and again people taking a stand. What about this example, what was the goal, what was achieved, what does it really do for the class struggle. IMO, this was an act of induviduals who are frustrated at inequality and taking it out by trying to scare some yuppies. That's like thinking you're going to kill a sea monster by pissing in the ocean from the beach.

[Skyhilist]

I honestly don't see how this is helping anything. There's nothing wrong with protesting but people aren't going to change their ways just because a few anarchists destroy things.In fact things like this only cause people to have a more negative view of anarchists, which if you ask me hurts the cause more than it helps.

[Ele'ill]

Not sure why you're getting so hostile. I'm not an enemy of yours.


Just tell me what does this concretely accomplish in regards to working class people learning to organize themselves and take on the ruling class?

Cause they organize among themselves and take on the ruling class by showing their distaste for the current way of things by burning shit and breaking windows, causing a ruckus with loud drums, bending and breaking a perceived reality and showing how it's just an illusion and how certain elements of control on us are so stupid fragile that all of us can begin to set ourselves free by engaging and by doing something.



WTF? Great. This is exactly what I'm argueing - do this, fantastic, this is the right direction. Now show me where the fuck in the video these grassroots connections were being made.

Kind of a dishonest and unrealistic request don't you think?


For some of you this is identity - Ooh, someone talking shit about some group of anarchists. Who gives a fuck. I want to see from anyone things that to the best of my ability to understand things, will help the class struggle and help workers develop their own independent and conscious movements. The IWW have the right idea even if I don't agree with them on everything, many of the anarchist activists in the Occupy movements are trying to bridge into the community. But on the other hand there seem to also be many who think that by naming the camp after "Oscar Grant" that the work is done, if they issue a statement about how this or that action is in solidarity with workers, then it's true. All of this is bullshit, much of it is sympathetic, but it shows the immaturity of the radical movement in world after two generations of being held back by Stalinism and all these mutant non-working class power based ideologies.

So, what exactly is your issue? What are you saying here?


And what if Jack Shit marries Mother Fuck? I gave you a real-life example of how this is effecting poltics and backfireing on the movement and you offer up "What-ifs". What if the class struggle magically turns into a pony.

No my question was much more realistic than that you just don't have an answer because you know you're wrong. You attempted to demonstrate how a family doesn't want specific outside agitators engaging in certain tactics, I believe your example was that of white people from outside that immediate community engaging in property destruction. I was asking what about people from that specific community engaging in property destruction? What if outside agitators is a myth? (it is)


I don't have a problem if there's an organic riot, but usually people haven't made shilds out of garbage cans or developed weak-ass ideological justifications for it in advance. The other thing is riots are an expression of class anger, but never achieve anything concrete unless there is organization pre-existing that can then champion that riot and build something more sustained out of it. There were something like 300 large-scale riots in the US in the mid and late 60s... and you think these little toy-insurrectionaries are achieving anything at all!

Yeah, I think stuff starts to build up and snowball. I don't think in the 60's or perhaps even in the 90's we saw electronic attacks on state infrastructure coordinated around physical attacks during marches, mass non-violent civil disobedience with peripheral ninja attacks going on in the weeks up through and after certain events with the more volatile actions occurring for our jailed brothers and sisters. All together each time.

It also baffles me that you have a problem with people being prepared to engage the state in a riot situation. As if having shields and an affinity group is a bad thing.


If a picket is ordered by judges to disband and strikers oppose this and riot when the police attack them - fantastic, this is people organized and taking a conscious stand. If the government essentially allows police to get away with brutalizing oppressed communities and people spontaneously fight back, then great, this is an expression of mass anger and again people taking a stand.

Look at you making rules. There's a war always going on against us, we are oppressed communities we just refuse to allow bureaucrats to tell us we can only 'spontaneously' fight 'back'.




What about this example, what was the goal, what was achieved, what does it really do for the class struggle. IMO, this was an act of induviduals who are frustrated at inequality and taking it out by trying to scare some yuppies. That's like thinking you're going to kill a sea monster by pissing in the ocean from the beach.

Again, it's 2012 and the nuclear arsenal hasn't taken out this sea monster cause there aren't enough people interested to get the nukes to the monster. I'll settle for pissing it off and teaching others how to. We can escalate week by week.

[Paulappaul]

WTF? Great. This is exactly what I'm argueing - do this, fantastic, this is the right direction. Now show me where the fuck in the video these grassroots connections were being made.

For some of you this is identity - Ooh, someone talking shit about some group of anarchists. Who gives a fuck. I want to see from anyone things that to the best of my ability to understand things, will help the class struggle and help workers develop their own independent and conscious movements. The IWW have the right idea even if I don't agree with them on everything, many of the anarchist activists in the Occupy movements are trying to bridge into the community. But on the other hand there seem to also be many who think that by naming the camp after "Oscar Grant" that the work is done, if they issue a statement about how this or that action is in solidarity with workers, then it's true. All of this is bullshit, much of it is sympathetic, but it shows the immaturity of the radical movement in world after two generations of being held back by Stalinism and all these mutant non-working class power based ideologies.

I think alot of this is generalization and the more adventurist anarchists generally float to the top for being, well, adventurist. It's that youthful enthusiasm that captures media attention. Naturally the Anarchist who smashes the Chase window is alot more memorable then the Anarchist who handed out pamphelts to some immigrants looking for work and likewise the Anarchist who labels a park "Oscar Grant" will overshadow there work in the "community". I think you are falling into the same trap that many proletarians fall into when they see flashy images of smashy smash and think its a bunch of privileged white boys disenfranchising proles. I think this relates to the fact that the left is cut and divided along milieus which don't understand each other and are often pinned aganist each other. It's very easy for me to generalize for example the ISO as that white middle class student wanker who tries to sell me papers while I am running from the police. When in fact, that's just one annoying instance of the organization which forms the face of it. In reality there is alot of really great working class militants in the ISO who I consider very close comrades and regardless of whether they call themselves Trotskyists I consider them to be a part of the wider Libertarian Communist milieu - that of which is very youthful, two generations is nothing in comparison to the generations of anti - capitalist struggle that lead to Stalinism.

There is an interesting dichotomy which I think you are trying to address and for which I see ISO militants typically trying to address aganist the so called "Anarchist Community". It's the dichotomy between Community and Insurrectionist tactics, the former which begins outside the point of production in that frame of time when workers aren't slaving to the boss, but to creditor, state, etc. and the later which begins and ends in the streets where a spectacle of insurrection begins. Whereas ISO and some Anarchists polarize onto these two extremes I think the dichotomy is false in the first place and what we need is Community and Workplace militancy. I think a good example of this what be the Tottenham Riots of 2011 or in Puerto Real Shipyard struggle in 2004.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Not sure why you're getting so hostile. I'm not an enemy of yours.Never thought of you as such. I'm sorry if anyone feels I'm being personal, I don't intend to come-off that way I'm just passionate about this because I personally put in time in this movement and think we as revolutionaries have missed an opportunity in the short-term and worse, I think many have drawn the wrong lessons and are heading in a direction which doesn't help the cause of working class self-emancipation.

I also have no desire for this to be any kind of tendency fight or whatnot. I am not trying to paint all anarchists in one way or whatever nor am I trying to blame any induviduals or whatnot. I am only interested in trying to figure out A) if there are things about this strategy that I am not understanding B) have a debate over what the already-revolutionary-oriented people should do in this moment in history to be as effective as we can be. From everything I've read and seen I am far from convinced that these kinds of actions can be anything but an impotent display of moral outrage.


Cause they organize among themselves and take on the ruling class by showing their distaste for the current way of things by burning shit and breaking windows, causing a ruckus with loud drums, bending and breaking a perceived reality and showing how it's just an illusion and how certain elements of control on us are so stupid fragile that all of us can begin to set ourselves free by engaging and by doing something.People break the law, game the system, do all kinds of individual rebellions all the time. I think it's more daily survival or individual expression than any kind of strategy forward. How do these acts help workers learn to depend on each-other and fight for themselves? It assumes that workers are all just waiting to be shown that the police can be confronted and need some enlightened people to show them how it's done. It's like Trotskyists who think they hold the pure politics and as soon as workers hear their brilliance, then they'll become revolutionaries.


Kind of a dishonest and unrealistic request don't you think?No I don't think it's dishonest or unrealistic to ask someone who says that these tactics are connecting revolutionaries to the larger community in a grassroots way to show evidence for this claim! If this video was of one of the housing BBQs in Oakland, then I wouldn't have any criticisms now would I! My problem is not with "Anarchists" but with these specific tactics. Why would you and Paul assume that criticizing a tactic was the same as criticizing a group of people irregardless of this tactic - or a whole complext grouping of ideas known as Anarchism?


So, what exactly is your issue? What are you saying here?My issue is that these kinds of tactics are a dead-end IMO and they have actually become a detriment and that I think there needs to be a reassessment.


No my question was much more realistic than that you just don't have an answer because you know you're wrong. You attempted to demonstrate how a family doesn't want specific outside agitators engaging in certain tactics, I believe your example was that of white people from outside that immediate community engaging in property destruction. I was asking what about people from that specific community engaging in property destruction? What if outside agitators is a myth? (it is)Considering that the white representative of Occupy who was doing some of the organizing teaches at a University in another city, in this specific case they'd technically be an "outside agitator" - however this anarchist organizer was upfront and transparent and gained the trust of the family and so being an "outsider" was not a barrier or an issue. Even if there are outside agitators who gives a shit. The police brought in 14 other cities to take down occupy so I don't see the problem if S.F. comrades or Central Vally comrades came to support of we got money from OWS. They call it outside agitation, but really it's solidarity.

The problem in this case I'm talking about is that the family doesn't trust the motives or tactics of all of occupy because of some of these small groups and these incidents that get hyped up in the media. If it's just some random people doing random things, then there's no much to be said. If people are championing and making ideological justifications for these kinds of actions, then it's different and I think there needs to be a discussion of tactics and strategy.


Yeah, I think stuff starts to build up and snowball. I don't think in the 60's or perhaps even in the 90's we saw electronic attacks on state infrastructure coordinated around physical attacks during marches, mass non-violent civil disobedience with peripheral ninja attacks going on in the weeks up through and after certain events with the more volatile actions occurring for our jailed brothers and sisters. All together each time. There were the 300 riots I spoke of earlier in the late 1960s - there were massive anti-war marches, BPP members in shoot-outs with the pigs, and massive strikes in France and a wave of colonial liberation movements. People thought "revolution was around the corner" and made a lot of mistakes because of it. We are no where near the kind of situation they had then and so there's no reason for people to make the same mistakes of the 1970s Maoists all over again.

Ok, let's just say that these multi-pronged disruptions somehow hit a critical mass and the government collapses. Does that put the working class in a position to take power in their own hands? Have workers learned how to work together and learned solidarity and who can be trusted or not?


It also baffles me that you have a problem with people being prepared to engage the state in a riot situation. As if having shields and an affinity group is a bad thing. Repeated confrontations for the sake of it - what does it get us? The cops are trained in dealing with crowds, so we play their game? The cops were sucessful when they were just rounding us up - they drained personal resources, they scared the fence-sitters away, and then the media blamed us and eroded the broad support the movement had.


Look at you making rules. There's a war always going on against us, we are oppressed communities we just refuse to allow bureaucrats to tell us we can only 'spontaneously' fight 'back'.Rules? So I'm not allowed to have an opinion about what I think actually helps the class struggle or hurts it? How egalitarian - all ideas are valid except criticizing our ideas.


Again, it's 2012 and the nuclear arsenal hasn't taken out this sea monster cause there aren't enough people interested to get the nukes to the monster. I'll settle for pissing it off and teaching others how to. We can escalate week by week.So there's no class struggle because workers are too dim to know how to make shields out of garbage cans? A vanguard has to show workers how to confront the police - something the police do to pickets and rallies anyway? How has escalation of confrontation worked out for the movement - are we bigger now? Has this tactic ever won anything for workers yet? All you've taught workers is if you confront the police 400 of you get rounded up.

I don't see any benefit to the class struggle. People will be willing to fight when they are confident it will get them somewhere. We can best spend out time on concrete class-based fights that can link radical politics with workers and oppressed communities.

Occupy Oakland had a dance party for a transwoman who was killed here recently. This is a start, but sentiment isn't enough - can a campaign be built around this issues is there something concrete that the movement could do so that other working class LGBT people who don't have resources can begin to see the movement as something that can directly help and something that they'd want to get involved in. Fighting against evictions would help show in a concrete way that protests work and that occupy politics are relevant to working people in Oakland. In the Labor Solidarity group in Occupy we were able to bring people out to pickets of immigrants many who then came back and got involved in occupy and said that their opinions about the movement have changed.

Yes, not flashy stuff. Maybe lots of boring meetings with people who are not radical yet, but this is the kind of grass-roots stuff that started in the movement and could have presented an alternative to both the moral "propaganda of the deed" confrontations of some on the one hand and the liberal's desire to channel it into legal and electoral directions on the other.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't think most people in the BB really care what people on the left think of them. Most of them probably wouldn't even situate themselves on "the left", although I know that there are some Marxists who participate in the BB tactic from time to time. I'd imagine that they're still very much a minority in comparison to the anarchists and self-styled insurrectionaries, though.

For those who play the long game, BB must look very silly. But I don't believe that the black bloc tactic is about the long game; I don't think that the people who participate in it have much use for trying to gradually build a "respectable" left-wing movement that will take over once things start to go bad. The track record for that isn't exactly pristine either. I'm curious JH, have you actually read any insurrectionary anarchist literature? There is very little in it (if anything, usually) about the end goal of what insurrectionary anarchists want to achieve. There is very little in the way of concrete steps to improve working class power, and usually only vague references to what IA's actually view their ideal social order as. This stands in stark contrast to much of what I've read from Trotskyist literature...one paper I read from the IMT had a full briefing of every policy that the IMT wanted the UK government to adopt, for instance, in great detail.

I can't help but think that this discussion is born of misunderstandings, themselves born of profound and unbridgable ideological differences.

[Skyhilist]

For me what seems unnecessarily and not accomplishing anything is when they beat the windows in on ordinary cars. Am I supposed to believe that none of them drive cars around anywhere? I'm sure some of the cars that they smashed were just as mediocre and probably similar to the cars that they drive. For all they know the people who owned some of those cars could've been people who'd support their cause. Smashing their windows though is obviously going to turn them off as well as any ordinary person who sees that. I can understand something (like that one guy questioning them said) like smashing the BMW of a rich elitist and rising up against that which has afflicted them, like they were in the beginning. The whole smashing of ordinary vehicles doesn't really make sense to me though. I highly doubt that all of them walk or ride bikes to every single destination they visit. I do however think that Black Bloc can be accomplishment if does correctly and not in an overly aggressive or disrespectful manner. I mean to the untrained eye of the ordinary person it just looks like these people like smashing shit.

[The Douche]

Jimmie,

Yuppies and their associated businesses totally do not want to move into a neighborhood that gets ransacked by anarchists, especially if it happens on more than one occasion.

[The Douche]

And after watching the video, the only piece of advice or critique I have to offer is that somebody should've taken a hammer to that "rational person", aka cop.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Jimmie,

Yuppies and their associated businesses totally do not want to move into a neighborhood that gets ransacked by anarchists, especially if it happens on more than one occasion.So you agree with the mainstream media's assessment that these activists are really just terrorists and that they are there to hurt local downtown businesses?

A war on obnoxious professionals - way to stick it to the man. This is tinker-toy stuff. Toy revolutionaries.


I don't think most people in the BB really care what people on the left think of them.Do they care if what they do helps or hurts worker's struggles and the revolutionary cause? Probably not that either.



I can't help but think that this discussion is born of misunderstandings, themselves born of profound and unbridgable ideological differences. Yes, I want an end to this shitty life and apparently they want to pretend they are free for a couple of hours.

[The Douche]

Jimmie, I would love it if the term terrorist could be applied with meaning in this situation. If we terrorize yuppies into not gentrifying neighborhoods then that's a victory.

As far as "toy revolutionaries" I think that is not to far off from describing all of us, not just anarchos.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Do they care if what they do helps or hurts worker's struggles and the revolutionary cause? Probably not that either.

They probably don't see what they're doing as hurting the revolutionary cause or worker's struggles.


Yes, I want an end to this shitty life and apparently they want to pretend they are free for a couple of hours.

*shrug* if that's how you choose to look at it...:unsure:

[ellipsis]

Thread split. Didn't happen in oakland, is not related directly to occupy oakland, discussion derailed a newswire thread.

[ellipsis]

some thoughts

1) anarchist also connect on "grassroots" levels in the mission, in which many of them reside. Food not Bombs serves 2-3 times a week in the mission alone and table with anarchist literature at the same time. Homes not Jails has, at points done building occupations as housing advocacy in the neighborhood. Cop watch helps keep mission residents safe from police brutality.

2) at some point this folks seemed to be classified as "white radicals". while i wouldn't say they are the majority, the mission radical and/or anarchist "scene" includes a lot of non-white anarchists, prominent and well-known local anarchist poet d. allen comes to mind. There are many brown people/POC (and queer/lgbtq and female-identified ppl) who are active participants in the local anarchist happenings and are influencial within the area and more broadly as well. It is a mischaracterization and blantant attempt to discredit the movement by the bourgeoise when "black bloc" is completely misrepresented, including labeling it "white" or even worse "middle-class white kids."

Don't believe the hype.

[Jimmie Higgins]

some thoughts

1) anarchist also connect on "grassroots" levels in the mission, in which many of them reside. Food not Bombs serves 2-3 times a week in the mission alone and table with anarchist literature at the same time. Homes not Jails has, at points done building occupations as housing advocacy in the neighborhood. Cop watch helps keep mission residents safe from police brutality.
Well my argument isn't about Anarchism and it's amazing that people here are taking a critique of certain tactics as an attack on anrchism as if anarchism is tactics and not a grouping of various ideologies and tradditions.

I think the support that Occupy had early on represented the first time in more than a generation in which revolutionaries could compete with liberal ideologies with a larger audience. For the first time in a long time people were gravitating towards arguments about class and about the system. The grassroots works of anti-eviction work, even the educational things by socialists and anarchists about the Paris Commune and Egypt and so on during the camp phase was great at connecting this general sentiment to actual revolutionary arguments. The labor committee I was in was able to link rank and file militants with the movement outside of the official labor movement - creating the potential for solidarity actions and all sorts of things.

Because of revolutionary anarchists and Marxists being involved in Oakland but with a more general audience, when the police attacked the movement revolutionary ideas gained credibility. Because when everyone else said the media and cops are our friends and the mayor supports us, we argued that it was all a show, our arguments gained credibility and so this helped build the forces for the first port shut-down. The mainstream unions had to tail the lead of the militants for once!

But when the empire struck back, this mantra of "escalation" really derailed things once the propaganda began to chip away at the general support the movement had. Our marches got smaller, the willingness to do militant action polarized because many people simply no longer trusted that the movement was going to keep moving forward or would continue to try for a bunch of "Last Stands" with the cops.

There are many structural problems in the movement and lack of democracy that exacerbated this IMO, so it's not the fault of people doing some of these actions, but my frustration is that people continue to uncritically talk about failing strategies as if they work somehow or are doing anything positive at this point.

So on May 1st we have the media scare-mongering about "violent protesters" for weeks, we have the liberal group[s backing out, in Oakland we had the immigrants rights march debating if they should have anything at all to do with Occupy because of the "violence" issue. And so in this context what happens. The night before the protests, a small group goes around smashing the windows of obnoxious foodie places in the heart of immigrant and white youth San Francisco. They played right into the hands of the media.

I think it shows a fundamental disconnect with where the working class is at right now and the potential to get ourselves out of the political ghetto and back into being an organic part of working class communities.

Let's just imagine if this strategy of disruption does anything. Imagine if cyber-attacks and disruptions happen and the government is paralyzed. Has working class consciousness reached a level where workers have confidence and know they can run things themselves?


2) at some point this folks seemed to be classified as "white radicals". while i wouldn't say they are the majority, the mission radical and/or anarchist "scene" includes a lot of non-white anarchists, prominent and well-known local anarchist poet d. allen comes to mind. There are many brown people/POC (and queer/lgbtq and female-identified ppl) who are active participants in the local anarchist happenings and are influencial within the area and more broadly as well. It is a mischaracterization and blantant attempt to discredit the movement by the bourgeoise when "black bloc" is completely misrepresented, including labeling it "white" or even worse "middle-class white kids."Well it wouldn't be fair to single out the black block but the entire US radical left and occupy were over-represented in the lack of melanin department. It's just the state of things right now and it needs to be overcome in general. But I've been to many of these events and there are non-whites there despite still being too-white. And like I said earlier, I don't believe there is anything wrong with "outside agitators" I call that solidarity and why the fuck not if it's sincere?

The bigger problem is not race inherently, it's the disconnect between what people are doing and what their motivations were and the general working class population. If immigrants wake up and see a bunch of smashed windows - where will they find an explanation for why this happened? The media, that's the most likely place. We have to overcome this, and it means more things like the BBQs and solidarity in strikes and community forums and showing what radical politics are in practice and how they can actually help workers win. Workers can get arrested by cops on their own, they don't need pointers on that.


Don't believe the hype.I don't care about their lies and propaganda, I care about it making effective in-raods among workers while the movement ignores it and pretends that this isn't a problem. The local ruling class isolated us and then was able to crush us and people talk like there's no criticizing the tactics which allowed this to happen or didn't put up any kind of ideological counter-offensive.

Our power as workers is in our numbers and in our connection to production and our potential to run society without the bosses. In the streets we are playing the game by their rules. What were the police created for? They were created to control groups of people and they're best at it when we are in small numbers. When there are big groups they split us up into small groups, make people run down side streets until we are small enough to be rounded up. These "escalation" tactics have not helped us win more support for the community, they have helped the media errode that. These tactics haven't even been successful in doing what they state they will do - they have lost tactically, ending with mass arrests, they have not shown people that that state is powerless, they have shown people how much the state will crack down on you. They have not given confidence to workers because most have been convinced by the propaganda as well as some of these fringe smashy things that we are impotent to actual force any change.


Jimmie, I would love it if the term terrorist could be applied with meaning in this situation. If we terrorize yuppies into not gentrifying neighborhoods then that's a victory.If the whole point was to make these yuppie business owners afraid, then it is by definition a strategy not of building up class resistance but of terrorism.

If that is our goal, then logically, Ossama is much more effective than us? That scared yuppies and the ruling class more than anything "terror" the left has caused through individual actions - remember all that class consciousness that followed that attack? Remember how everyone was all ready for a revolution and had no illusions about the nature of state power:thumbdown:

Yuppies are annoying as fuck, but they aren't the ruling class. Where's the perspective?


As far as "toy revolutionaries" I think that is not to far off from describing all of us, not just anarchos. No there are plenty of anarchists who are trying to build towards working class self-emancipation. They are not toy revolutionaries because they have some sense of how we can try and subjectively build better conditions for class struggle. Toy revolutionaries are people who think they can proclaim themselves a vanguard despite a lack of a movement or who think that tiny street confrontations are somehow a revolutionary act in of itself.

[The Douche]

So Ossama is much more effective than us? That scared yuppies and the ruling class more than anything we've done - remember all that class consciousness that followed that attack? Remember how everyone was all ready for a revolution and had no illusions about the nature of state powerhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/4-30-sf-t172077/revleft/smilies2/thumbdown.gif

Yuppies are annoying as fuck, but they aren't the ruling class. Where's the perspective?

Really bro? Osama? For real?

If we terrorize yuppies away from working class areas, and effectively hault gentrification that is a positive thing, and it inherently carries a class perspective.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Really bro? Osama? For real?Well you said the goal was to scare these people. How is it different - does scale matter? A KKK person burning a cross to get a black family out of the neighborhood is terrorism but when it's our side terrorizing a yuppie owner, that's somehow different? I'm all in favor of workers forming a militia and terrorizing camps of counter-revolutionary militias or terrorizing Klansmen if it helps defend a revolution or whatnot, but in the absence of this greater context, attacking some restuarant is not an act of conflict between workers as a class and the ruling class as a class. It's individualist terrorism just like has existed for centuries, it's an individual strategy, it doesn't do shit to organize workers for their own interest. It's some "vanguard" acting on "behalf" of some abstract notion of "workers" rather than dealing with the real world working class that exists.


If we terrorize yuppies away from working class areas, and effectively hault gentrification that is a positive thing, and it inherently carries a class perspective.Like if you take some tanks and liberate eastern Europe and drive out the oligarchs.:rolleyes:

First it's an absolutely ridiculous notion that gentrification, the transformation of urban poor areas into wealth enclaves, can be stopped by some random window smashing and graffiti. If that was true, then GENTRIFICATION WOULD NEVER HAPPEN in the crime and graffiti-ridden neighborhoods that it always happens in! Most areas where gentrification happens have visible drug addicts, graffiti and worse conditions than broken windows. That's the whole point the developers and the enterpenuers create business associations and call for more police to bring order to that area and the heat comes down on the community and the homeless!

An occasional window-smashing ostensibly in the name of radical politics would not stop gentrification and would just bring the heat down on both the left and the community.

Second AGAIN, how does this help workers organize THEMSELVES?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think when there are a lot of people upset about political, social, economic issues and they don't know where to turn and the labor route has been done and involves companies attacking gains made by labor struggles and the workers either just barely get it back or they flat out lose and the resentment of confrontation by heads of the unions and movements being cooped by political parties to shift back to an impotent center I think that unforgiving militancy, riot, direct action opens up an entirely new bag of tools that can be used by each and every worker on the planet, to share with one another and to use themselves. I don't understand using everything but these in that bag.

Sure, I'm not against anything on principle as long as it helps advance the class struggle. I don't think "individual" strategies are worth much in this regard because the ruling class rules in part by keeping people atomized and isolated. Jim-Crow and gang laws specifically had/have rules about how many people can gather together.

Beyond that though I don't think any tactic should be seen as a principle, sometimes direct action is the best sometimes peaceful marches are what's needed, sometimes you need to fight to protect yourself or hold a picket line or occupation site (I think there's a huge difference between Portland fighting to keep the police out and people randomly engaging police no matter what the circumstance).

So what was the tactical advantage of the actions in this video, can someone please tell me how they advanced the movement and were not just some people who take tactics as dogma and just want to make a show of their moral outrage?

We went from bringing out tens of thousands in Oakland to bringing out thousands with 50% of those thousands explicitly NOT identifying as Occupy Oakland because they didn't want to be seen that way. At some point a real assessment is needed. We had momentum and the city adapted and turned it around while we tried the same things over and over again. Tactically it's no different than the mass-marches on repeat of the anti-war movement.

We should take not of the City's strategy... it was to first isolate us politically. They worked on NGOs and Unions to put their leadership back in line after the movement forced them to tail the militants. Then it was to inoculate us from the community. They began a PR offensive trying to paint the movement as only being about some random people breaking things "because they like chaos". This allowed them to then unleash massive repression which was then blamed on us!

The kinds of actions like in that video played right into their propaganda. We needed to adapt to that and change tactics to repair that damage. As the city's strategy shows, I think their main fear was not some vandalism to stores, but was that a political movement was developing that could create a grassroots kind of movement not beholden to the city like NGOs and liberal churches and that had massive support. That's when we were powerful and a real threat. The video shows the movement at it's most impotent.

[Ele'ill]

Pretty sure that's a drunk post that I removed an hour ago that you're responding to. If a group of 10 kids with bricks on your side of things is enough to crumple your movement at the knees I don't think you can handle the cruisers that are retreating from said kids with bricks. I guess I want to see more agitation towards confrontation and less 'winning' by 'barely getting out alive'. I want the possibility of escalation.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I have no moral problems with most BB tactics but Higgins brings up a good point. Most real working class people I talk to feel nearly as alienated by these kinds of protests as anyone else, and it makes them less likely to want to work with or associate with protests. The example of the Oakland shooting recently is a good example of how it can be counterproductive to organizing. It's not that such tactics are wrong or shouldn't be utilized, it's that utilizing them at the wrong way or the wrong times can do more harm than good to organizing the broader working class.

It's not the yuppies who are driving up the house prices, it's the landlords and the state. Instead of "terrorizing Yuppies", it is best to help make people aware of how the privatization of land and capital leads to negative social consequences for the poor. If anybody should be confronted forcefully, it should be the people who own the land and the state. It is arbitrary, and is as likely to cause a legalistic and populist backlash against radicals as convince people that the law can be rightly challenged by confrontation.

I have no problem if one decides to use these kinds of tactics in particular circumstances, but there should be a strategic objective in mind and a rational argument for how the action could lead to such an outcome.

[Psy]

For me what seems unnecessarily and not accomplishing anything is when they beat the windows in on ordinary cars. Am I supposed to believe that none of them drive cars around anywhere? I'm sure some of the cars that they smashed were just as mediocre and probably similar to the cars that they drive. For all they know the people who owned some of those cars could've been people who'd support their cause. Smashing their windows though is obviously going to turn them off as well as any ordinary person who sees that. I can understand something (like that one guy questioning them said) like smashing the BMW of a rich elitist and rising up against that which has afflicted them, like they were in the beginning. The whole smashing of ordinary vehicles doesn't really make sense to me though. I highly doubt that all of them walk or ride bikes to every single destination they visit. I do however think that Black Bloc can be accomplishment if does correctly and not in an overly aggressive or disrespectful manner. I mean to the untrained eye of the ordinary person it just looks like these people like smashing shit.

I agree, since we also have to remember workers look at this and fear for the means of production they tend to, with Black Bloc smashing windows how can workers that take means of production trust these protesters around the means of production? If militant workers deploy their trucks there to help protests then it is a rational concern those trucks could be targeted by the Black Bloc thus you have workers in fear of Black Bloc.

The Black Bloc is not helping the protest by purposely damaging property, we are not Luddites smashing means of protection, our goal is to liberate means of production.

[ellipsis]

My earlier comment was to provide some context, not to approve of anything. My comment about local anarchists was attempting to show that people who participate in black bloc are also involved in other tactics and strategies.

IMO, although I won't condemn it or attempt to explain their motives (snitchjacketing), many people with the bay area occupy's are not diversifying their energy enough. The way to counter act the dominant narrative surrounding "violence" is to do they less glamourous, less exciting stuff.

As a local involved with politics before occupy started, it was frustrating to see more energy not channeled into productive ventures that were already established, e.g. OSF had a "gardening/farming working group" but none of them ever became involved in the non-hiearchical, community farm (not the yuppie kind) that I worked on in the city, or any other community gardens/farms. Food not bombs saw a similar lack of influx of participation. Nor did occupysf start similar endeavors after their camp got broken up.

At the same time I had a lot of similar feeling about my own friends and comrades in the local radical scene, folks didn't put energy into productive and important political endeavors, ones that were less exciting and more drudgery. In general many people seem relunctant to put in the needed time and energy needed to really grow as a social/political movement.

I wish I could comment more about the OP video, but I wasn't there, not even in the city and i can't really get too much info through the wire. BUT I will say I was pretty surprised when this happened, in the two years of street protests I went to, nothing like this happened, not even close. I don't know what to make of that fact. I do know that an local anarchist comrade of mine who lives in the mission expressed concern that these actions would bring increased police scrutiny to his hood and collective space, whether or not that is a valid fear is hard to say.

[The Douche]

I do know that an local anarchist comrade of mine who lives in the mission expressed concern that these actions would bring increased police scrutiny to his hood and collective space, whether or not that is a valid fear is hard to say. What, Station 40? Didn't some cops get thrown down the stairs there once or something? Like somebody had done something and ran to Station 40 to hide/escape, the cops followed and got forcefully ejected?

Surely that would've brought some increased scrutiny, I mean, just having overt anarchist spaces is gonna bring scrutiny.

[Ele'ill]

I don't think the concern is sudden police or media scrutiny cause that already exists, they're always looking to do it and they'll use anything to do it. There is no soft path to walk down to avoid getting slandered and having some people get scared or believe what they're hearing/seeing. The motives for these actions vary greatly and nobody can pinpoint one goal on them beause of this but something that does happen when using militant tactics as I said before is that it opens up other options, it creates a flexible atmosphere and it allows people to act. The left needs to get over its fear of confrontation.

[ellipsis]

What, Station 40? Didn't some cops get thrown down the stairs there once or something? Like somebody had done something and ran to Station 40 to hide/escape, the cops followed and got forcefully ejected?

Surely that would've brought some increased scrutiny, I mean, just having overt anarchist spaces is gonna bring scrutiny.

Ha, no im not queer-insurrecto enough to spend too much time there. Another similar collective that wouldn't want to be identified there.

No I think his fear was that this action would lead to more repression on anarchist spaces in the Mission. Like I said I don't know how valid that fear is, my guess would be not very, but it was the limited feedback i got through the wire, and thought it relevant to the current discussion.

[ellipsis]

a couple flaws i see in jimmie higgin's narrative

1) OO lost numbers in the streets, which you attribute to people not wanting to be associated with violence. I think that is just wrong, most occupy's numbers died everywhere after the coordinated national crackdown. OO enjoyed a huge boost post-eviction and esp. post-scott olsen, which is why so many people where at the general strike. People left the movement for a number of reasons, I wouldn't be so quick to link the rise in well-publicized acts of property desctruction and the smaller numbers in OO actions. I would guess that fear of violence on the part of police had a lot to do with it.

2) you claim that property destruction fits perfectly with the anti-occupy propaganda. this sort of rests on the premise that if black bloc type property destruction were NOT happening, the movement would be portrayed better by the media. the media did and would smear occupy for other reasons, "there a bunch of jobless hippies smoking pot and fucking", sexual violence in camps, lack of "coherent political goals" etc.

[thriller]

I like how this shows that people who are not in the march and just walking by are not hurt or hit or fucked with in anyway (The older lady waving was great). Although the fact that they were fucking up cars on the street is kind of bullshit IMHO. Businesses and property is one thing, cars people use to get to and from work (or FOR work) is another thing. But also, whatever, your shit gets fucked with in California one way or another.

[Paulappaul]

Although the fact that they were fucking up cars on the street is kind of bullshit IMHO.

It was a wealth district and the cars fucked up were obviously those of people with incredible wealth and privilege. Who gives a fuck?