Anarchists waste three cops in mexico.

[The Douche]

http://anarchistnews.org/content/mexico-responsibility-claim-armed-attack-municipal-police-patrol-car-municipality-valle-de-c

Let the shit storm proceed. ACAB.

[Hit The North]

From the article
If we had only killed one uniformed cop, and the rest of the crew were civilian personnel and family members of that municipal cop, as the media of massive stupefaction like to ‘lament’, we would not have any regrets. We would attack again without remorse. There are no guilty or innocent in the struggle for the destruction of the existent. Anyone who feeds this system of death is our enemy.Hey, Joe Public, better duck for cover - the anarchists are gunning for you. Nice message. Should win the workers to the side of the revolution in double quick time - if only out of fear for their lives :rolleyes:

[ВАЛТЕР]

Thug life.:cool:

[The Douche]

Hey, Joe Public, better duck for cover - the anarchists are gunning for you. Nice message. Should win the workers to the side of the revolution in double quick time - if only out of fear for their lives :rolleyes:

I can't wait to get to a computer and shove tiqqun down your throat in response.:thumbup1:

[Os Cangaceiros]

Wow, that's unusual. Most anarchists (even violent ones) are pretty squeamish about actually killing people. Which is not something I fault them for.

Unlike the shooting of the executive in Italy by anarchists, though, I don't think this will get much attention, as cops get whacked in Mexico fairly frequently.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Will this same organisation now attack the drug gangs? (Not of course that there is a huge difference between the cops and the brutal drug gangs). I have a feeling though that an organised attack on a drug gang by a political organisation will mean the rapid end of the aforementioned political organisation. Unless of course there is a huge working class mobilization behind them.

Somehow I have the feeling that a cop car is more of an easy target.

[Os Cangaceiros]

note: refering to modern anarchists. Anarchists historically have, of course, killed quite a few people.

[Geiseric]

What were the circumstances? Not that I care about the cop but did they shoot in retaliation like Mumia Abu Jamal?

[Hit The North]

I can't wait to get to a computer and shove tiqqun down your throat in response.:thumbup1:

Um, yeah, can't wait, big man. I'll probably counter with some Trotsky or sumthin.

[Art Vandelay]

This just brightened up my day. :)

ACAB.

[black magick hustla]

cops get dropped in mexico like flies every day nobody is going to give a shit about this. insurrecto violence just merges with the general state of violence in mexico, nothing liberatory about it

[The Douche]

cops get dropped in mexico like flies every day nobody is going to give a shit about this. insurrecto violence just merges with the general state of violence in mexico, nothing liberatory about it

It brightened my day, and I bet the prisoners who this was done in solidarity with will "give a shit".

[Jimmie Higgins]

Wow, only 300,000 more cops and they might be able to catch up to the drug cartels who also shoot media and lawyers... they must be more revolutionary I guess. I can't remember the exact number but a fascist shot some cops in Oakland when he was on his way to shoot up an ACLU building. A non-fascist regular guy shot 4 cops in Oakland a while ago - cops still get away with murder though, in fact I think the city used the police murders to pass a larger police budget.

Seriously though, this is tinker toy shit. Remember the anarchist who shot a US president? Few do. Remember the socialist who blew up the LA Times building? Nah. Remember any of these individual acts of violence? Not usually unless it's an example used by the right-wing to "scare people" about the left... but even then they'd much rather scare people about the BPP. Remember the IWW? Remember the sit-down strikes in Detroit? Remember Tarhir? These kinds of struggles help workers organize themselves in ways that can potentially help us as a class take over society. Some armed saviors? They teach us to be passive recipients.

The only time these kinds of individual acts are useful tactically to the class struggle is when they are auxilluraly to a broader class struggle. Otherwise they are individual actions disconnected from anything else and can actually then be used against class-struggle anarchists and Marxists.


We decided to join the call of anarchist groups and individuals that are not limited to words and curses against social peace, and take in their hands the decision to blow up the system of domination, turning direct solidarity with our captive brothers and sisters into practice.Revolution by the revolutionaries, not workers. Thank god we have these Leninist... Maoist... Anarchist saviors to liberate us!


Chaos has returned for everyone who thought it was dead.LOL. Idiocy. Capitalism is chaos for Mexico, the War on Drugs is chaos for Mexico... this however is just spitting in the dirt and calling it an irrigation system.

[black magick hustla]

It brightened my day, and I bet the prisoners who this was done in solidarity with will "give a shit".

yea, in the same sense they probably give a shit if someone sends them a gift or letter. i just don't see the point of this, at all. i think its just kindof gross too when first world insurrectos jerk off violently at this shit cuz' they clearly don't have the balls to waste their own cops. and honestly, it could also just be cartels settling scores with the cops and then some asshole insurrecto trolled the world by claiming he did it

[Os Cangaceiros]

I was under the impression that Mexico City was a relatively quiet area of Mexico, in regards to drug related violence.

[black magick hustla]

when i read anarchistnews comments i just think of cowards and weiners. american anarchists don't even have what it takes to deal with their own snitches. there is something disturbing about manarchist hardtalk imho

[The Douche]

yea, in the same sense they probably give a shit if someone sends them a gift or letter. i just don't see the point of this, at all. i think its just kindof gross too when first world insurrectos jerk off violently at this shit cuz' they clearly don't have the balls to waste their own cops. and honestly, it could also just be cartels settling scores with the cops and then some asshole insurrecto trolled the world by claiming he did it

Nobody is jerking off in this thread. @news comments are whatever, since you can't really determine what is trolling and what isn't, nine times out of ten.

And manarchist blah blah blah, whatever. If anybody is sexist in that equation its the (usually male) person who says women can't/don't fight/shoot/light fires or whatever.

[black magick hustla]

Nobody is jerking off in this thread. @news comments are whatever, since you can't really determine what is trolling and what isn't, nine times out of ten.

And manarchist blah blah blah, whatever. If anybody is sexist in that equation its the (usually male) person who says women can't/don't fight/shoot/light fires or whatever.

i don't think it takes a great deal of intuition to recognize the hypermasculinity of some aspects of insurrectos

[The Douche]

i don't think it takes a great deal of intuition to recognize the hypermasculinity of some aspects of insurrectos

Well, assist me and my lack of intuition.

[Ravachol]

http://www.buzzfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/soas3ep312_2.jpg

[The Douche]

http://www.buzzfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/soas3ep312_2.jpg

Holy shit, a "hella sick communist street gang". (ok, anarchist motorcycle club, but its close enough)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Holy shit, a "hella sick communist street gang". (ok, anarchist motorcycle club, but its close enough):lol:.

Never seen the show - it's set in Oakland isn't it? Are they really supposed to be "anarchist" I always thought it was more just a name to sound tough like most clubs.[/chit-chat]

[Os Cangaceiros]

Their name is based on the Sons of Silence motorcycle club, I think.

[The Douche]

:lol:.

Never seen the show - it's set in Oakland isn't it? Are they really supposed to be "anarchist" I always thought it was more just a name to sound tough like most clubs.[/chit-chat]

I don't watch, but have seen a few episodes. As I understand it, the club was founded with some anarchist inspiration (one episode references a Goldman quote) but then became a criminal enterprise.

[Os Cangaceiros]

yea, in the same sense they probably give a shit if someone sends them a gift or letter. i just don't see the point of this, at all. i think its just kindof gross too when first world insurrectos jerk off violently at this shit cuz' they clearly don't have the balls to waste their own cops. and honestly, it could also just be cartels settling scores with the cops and then some asshole insurrecto trolled the world by claiming he did it

Just to return to this for a sec, I really don't see how it's much of a stretch to actually believe that it was anarchists who carried out this act, because viewed in the context of recent activities it seems not unlikely. I mean, anarchists in Greece have shot at police with machine guns, anarchists/autonomists in Russia have set police stations on fire, anarchists in Chile somehow managed to smuggle a bomb into a police station recently, and didn't some Mexican anarchist get his arm blown off when a bomb he was carrying prematurely exploded or something?

Given all that, it's not really a stretch that someone somewhere would get so high on their own direct action ideology that bullets would start flying.

I'm not going to condemn the action, but I don't think it's of any importance, at the same time. Just kind of pointless in the "grand scheme of things". But then again pretty much everything is. :(


A non-fascist regular guy shot 4 cops in Oakland a while ago

Insurrectos love that guy. Christopher Monfort, too, the "constitutionalist" who capped a couple cops in Seattle and set some cop cars on fire or something in retaliation for police brutality.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Insurrectos love that guy. Christopher Monfort, too, the "constitutionalist" who capped a couple cops in Seattle and set some cop cars on fire or something in retaliation for police brutality.I know they do and other activists too, but it seems kind of disingenuous or somethings to elevate an act of desperation to some kind of romantic level. He was on probation, had a gun in his car and got pulled over for a pretext (racial profiling) stop. I'm pretty sure that when he was hiding in his sister's apartment and with cops busting in guns blazing, he probably wished that the cops hadn't pulled him over that day.

The result? Did cops get scared and think twice about racially profiling people? No, they went on a rampage and the city and media and many people in the community backed them.

The Oscar Grant movement however, even though it resulted in a partial victory created the groundwork for a network of activists who are continuing to organize against police violence and shut down a city hall meeting last week. There was only a partial victory in the actual case, but I think it has shown our rulers to keep on edge because people in the city will push back. Family members and community members and occupy and radical people have all gotten involved in this work. If one kid shoots at cops, he will likely be killed and then demonized - if thousands in a city are in opposition, and organize publicly and together, then they can not be dismissed so easily and they can rally people who want to actually do something around a movement, rather than just a romantic martyr.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think it's clear that we can only commence the mass executions when we're in a position of power and authority. That'll protect us from any negative blowback. :thumbup1:

[Ravachol]

If one kid shoots at cops, he will likely be killed and then demonized - if thousands in a city are in opposition, and organize publicly and together, then they can not be dismissed so easily and they can rally people who want to actually do something around a movement, rather than just a romantic martyr.

You honestly still believe in that kind of crap? Thousands can march, millions can march. It doesn't mean shit if all they do is march, file petitions and wave some placard around. Even if you care for reforms (which I don't really give a shit about as far as 'goals' are concerned) its still the 'shadow of the black man with the molotov standing behind me' (to quote King) that is what isn't easily dismissed. Not 'Blabla for justice' or 'People for blabla' or whatever.

Sure, I agree about the whole 'individual martyr' thing (though you should interpret that in the context of Bloom (http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/10696) I guess and not in some instrumentalist way) but the stereotypical line about how the state fears TEH PEOPLE!!1! is tiresome and false.

[Ele'ill]

i don't think it takes a great deal of intuition to recognize the hypermasculinity of some aspects of insurrectos

I think some of the hooliganesque shit is hypermasculine posturing and not actual attack to any competent end but I think if you push that criticism too far it turns to complete mush and you end up sounding like Chris Hedges.

[The Douche]

BMH, I'm still waiting for you to continue with your critique of us so-called "manarchists", on here or facebook.




Let every dirty, lousy tramp arm himself with a revolver or knife on the steps of the palace of the rich and stab or shoot their owners as they come out. Let us kill them without mercy, and let it be a war of extermination and without pity
You are not absolutely defenseless. For the torch of the incendiary, which has been known with impunity, cannot be wrested from you. Look at this fucking manarchist:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fI61jmF8rg4/Tmal6LcqQKI/AAAAAAAABLo/YwijIr21-bQ/s1600/lucyparsons.jpg

[Jimmie Higgins]

You honestly still believe in that kind of crap?Yes I believe in working class self-emancipation, which necissarilly involves the working class orgnanizing together, not in self-selcted saviors calling themselves the vanguard or "people who do something in solidarity with blah blah...)


Thousands can march, millions can march. It doesn't mean shit if all they do is march, file petitions and wave some placard around. This is a straw-man that organizing means no action, and individual action means action. The Oscar Grant movement had "riots" if you will recall - this is overblown and they were instigated by police in the first couple instances, but they would not have meant anything without the organized movement and visa-versa. Tarhir had street-fights but more importantly and decisivly a strike-wave. Strikes have had direct battles with police. So you are viewing tactics moralistically while I am trying to make a political case for tactics.

If you had read my post you would have seen that I said these kinds of individual tactics are only potentially useful IMO in the context of a broader movement, not as individual actions. Strikes are violent, can sabotage things etc. But sabotaging something at work anonymously or with a note to the boss doesn't do that much for working class self-organization. It's an individualist action out of frustration. Morally justified of course and understandable - but worth little as a liberation tactic.

The fundamental philosophical problem with these ideas comes from a misunderstanding of the nature of the system. If people think that it's just capitalism holding us back, then they can see the point of revolt or liberation as just destroying the bosses and the structures that hold them in place. But the point for me is not destroying capitalism but winning working class self-emancipation. This means sabotage is not enough, that workers need to come to their own conclusions that revolution is needed, have to be self organized and independent of other class leadership and ready and able to take over the workplaces and get rid of the bosses to run things in our own democratic interests.


Sure, I agree about the whole 'individual martyr' thing (though you should interpret that in the context of Bloom (http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/10696) I guess and not in some instrumentalist way) but the stereotypical line about how the state fears TEH PEOPLE!!1! is tiresome and false.No the state does fear the people... but we have to be organized to be a threat. For example this fear is why it's illegal to have solidarity strikes in the US even though it's legal to form a militia and carry a rifle. If it was direct force that the state feared and not worker's potential power, you think they might have reversed that at some point. Even after years of riots in the 1960s where people shot at cops during the rioting, guns weren't cracked down on in cities until the Panthers ORGANIZED that anger and sentiment into something.

[Ele'ill]

But sabotaging something at work anonymously or with a not to the boss doesn't do that much for working class self-organization.

But it can make for easier work days for an extended period of time, with co workers who don't want to unionize. Honestly I don't like someone telling me to just take it until some bureaucratic structure or whatever gets going I see no need to wait.


No the state does fear the people... but we have to be organized to be a threat. For example this fear is why it's illegal to have solidarity strikes in the US even though it's legal to form a militia and carry a rifle. If it was direct force that the state feared and not worker's potential power, you think they might have reversed that at some point.

I don't think anybody is talking about militia guerrilla warfare but a cursory glance at the situation up North here shows that autonomous direct action is of course a threat.

[Ele'ill]

post

"Hey you can't attack like that to defend yourself, instead you have to go through the process of being raped, beaten by the police, jailed, killed, etc.. but it will be totally worth while cause you'll be within my privileged moral parameters that I feel most comfortable with and you'll go to heaven and get to wash jesus's feet and stuff'

[Jimmie Higgins]

But it can make for easier work days for an extended period of time, with co workers who don't want to unionize. Honestly I don't like someone telling me to just take it until some bureaucratic structure or whatever gets going I see no need to wait.Sure, I'm not trying to set up some paint by numbers version of tactics. People have to do what they think is best given what is available. But in the question of what of currently available tactics would be best right now, I think helping to organize and prepare our class is the most important and so these kinds of actions don't so much for that.

As far as unionization in this specific example, well first I'm all in favor of wild-cat strikes and think that unions as institutions of capitalist society can only be made effective for workers from rank and file organizing (which then also generally involves wild-cat struggles). So either in or out of a union, I think radical workers should try and organize people around them on a class basis as much as possible.

As I see it, the problem with anonymous direct action, isn't as much the direct action as the anonymous part. How does one get in touch with anonymous forces as a regular worker? How does one know if an anonymous force is true or CIA - any look at anarchist message boards will tell you that you can not. What's the difference between a fascist shooting up cops because he thinks they defend an anti-white society and some anonymous leftist shooting cops because they bolster the capitalist system?

These kinds of tactics are not problems in of themselves because any tactic needs to be flexible and seen in a means and ends sort of relationship. But the problem with a lot of the way these tactics seem to have been used is that they are totally isolated and separate from any sort of larger class forces. This is what makes them individual and the ideas behind them, IMO, a dead-end.

The system can survive terrorism, it can survive NAZI blitz in London/firebombing of industrial Germany/Atom bombs dropped on Japan. It can survive any number of direct attacks and can often effectively outgun or out-maneuver them. But even if these kinds of attacks become wide-spread enough and effective enough... then what? If workers aren't self-organized and conscious of the need for running production themselves, then who takes over... a Che or a Warlord or a Party or old sections of the ruling class, but not the working class and therefore you might end up with some short-term reforms like in past insurrection, but then inevitable without the working class in power, some other social force will shape society.

So concretely how does shooting 3 cops in a country where there are often murders and kidnappings of cop and politicians advance working class self-organization, independence, or consciousness? If this happened in a place without that level of violence, it would be shocking, but again wouldn't do anything to advance people's sense of their own power as workers.

[black magick hustla]

"Hey you can't attack like that to defend yourself, instead you have to go through the process of being raped, beaten by the police, jailed, killed, etc.. but it will be totally worth while cause you'll be within my privileged moral parameters that I feel most comfortable with and you'll go to heaven and get to wash jesus's feet and stuff'

lol its not that violence is "immoral" or whatever but i guess i have to spell it out to you folks.

of course women can be agressive and engage in violent actions, fights, etc. they could also be the loudest in discussion settings, rape men by sodomizing them with a stick when they are drunk, violently abuse their husbands, grope a man at the point of a gun, etc. however, you see what is the problem of that argument?

society is gendered and certain behaviors are gendered too and no matter how some anarchists think you can engage in certain actions in a social vacuum, this will not erase the fact that loud, agressive, and violent tendencies made themselves more manifest in men and they are alienating to a lot of women. its not sexist to acknowledge a fact, and its asinine to cover your eyes and ears about it and pretend there are no social forces at work.

[officer nugz]

society is gendered and certain behaviors are gendered too and no matter how some anarchists think you can engage in certain actions in a social vacuum, this will not erase the fact that loud, agressive, and violent tendencies made themselves more manifest in men and they are alienating to a lot of women. its not sexist to acknowledge a fact, and its asinine to cover your eyes and ears about it and pretend there are no social forces at work.people who critique males for being masculine are just as bad as those who socially enforce masculinity. someone who socially enforces masculinity is making people adopt an attitude and worldview which they are uncomfortable with. same exact thing goes to people, almost exclusively leftists, who try to box men into a role which is more effeminate than what they feel self actualized by.

as for the rest of the thread, cops die in mexico every day. nobody is going to care about this outside of ideologues from afar and direct associates of the people who did this, this is not notable. people can feel whatever way they want about it, just understand that.

[black magick hustla]

people who critique males for being masculine are just as bad as those who socially enforce masculinity. someone who socially enforces masculinity is making people adopt an attitude and worldview which they are uncomfortable with. same exact thing goes to people, almost exclusively leftists, who try to box men into a role which is more effeminate than what they feel self actualized by.


nobody is saying this. i am a very masculine person in general. i was raised up in the mexican northwest, and a lot of behaviors that are considered feminine i can't really intuit them and i have to intellectually wrap my mind around them in order to make sense of them. i hate "sensitive male feminists" and i find them suspicious and phony.

however, it doesn't take much thought to realize that if the white dudes in the group are the ones dominating the discourse then something needs to be done about it. there is nothing feminine about that, its just reasonable.

[Ele'ill]

this will not erase the fact that loud, agressive, and violent tendencies made themselves more manifest in men and they are alienating to a lot of women. its not sexist to acknowledge a fact, and its asinine to cover your eyes and ears about it and pretend there are no social forces at work.

I think machoism can be an issue for sure obviously but I resent the idea that self defense is macho or masculine. That's pretty fucking lame tbh.

[black magick hustla]

I think machoism can be an issue for sure obviously but I resent the idea that self defense is macho or masculine. That's pretty fucking lame tbh.

what the fuck has self-defense to do with wasting three cops and the insurrecto highschool poetics of fetishizing violence?

[Ele'ill]

what the fuck has self-defense to do with wasting three cops

:lol:


and the insurrecto highschool poetics of fetishizing violence?

It's action against constant violence. Are you a student?

[black magick hustla]

:lol:



It's action against constant violence

lol whatever, yea, daggers drawn against the existent, global civil war, meaningless abstractions of violence, etc etc

[Ele'ill]

lol whatever, yea, daggers drawn against the existent, global civil war, meaningless abstractions of violence, etc etc

Chris Hedges, gender roles etc..

[#FF0000]

lol whatever, yea, daggers drawn against the existent, global civil war, meaningless abstractions of violence, etc etc

I don't think what mari3l was saying was all that abstract. Cops in mexico are particularly awful as far as cops go. I could easily see why someone would want to do this.

I don't know how useful it is to do these things. Probably not useful at all, I'd venture. But yeah still.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think what mari3l was saying was all that abstract. Cops in mexico are particularly awful as far as cops go. I could easily see why someone would want to do this.

I don't know how useful it is to do these things. Probably not useful at all, I'd venture. But yeah still.

of course they are awful but self-defense always has the connotations of immediate threat/violence. self-defense is different from revengism and especially this particular brand of heavily ideological revengism. there is a very big difference between organic class violence (when indian workers burnt their bosses alive as visceral retaliation because there comrade was whacked) to like this sort of ideological, phony premeditated violence that probably took months and tons of ideological preparation to be made

[officer nugz]

what is the global civil war and what abstractions of violence?:confused:

[black magick hustla]

what is the global civil war and what abstractions of violence?:confused:

its just insurrectos always like to make, general poetic statements as substitute for analytical and precise thinking. so they could go off and say how society and capital are constant violence and therefore all its symbols and agents are legitimate targets of retaliatory violence. the problem with this sort of thinking is that while its good for propaganda its not really strategically sensible and sometimes leads to disturbing outcomes (when mexican primitivists attempted to blow up nanotech scientists cuz you can make some general vague and fuzzy heavyhanded justification about how science is an agent of capital and therefore it is a legitimate target)

[o well this is ok I guess]

its just insurrectos always like to make, general poetic statements as substitute for analytical and precise thinking. so they could go off and say how society and capital are constant violence and therefore all its symbols and agents are legitimate targets of retaliatory violence. the problem with this sort of thinking is that while its good for propaganda its not really strategically sensible and sometimes leads to disturbing outcomes (when mexican primitivists attempted to blow up nanotech scientists cuz you can make some general vague and fuzzy heavyhanded justification about how science is an agent of capital and therefore it is a legitimate target) I dunno, we could probably just put this down as a problem with manifestos in general.
I mean, I can find a lot more anarchists that have read The Coming Insurrection than have read Foucault.

[black magick hustla]

I dunno, we could probably just put this down as a problem with manifestos in general.
I mean, I can find a lot more anarchists that have read The Coming Insurrection than have read Foucault.

not really. its an attitude that has existed way before foucault. ravachol, reprise individuelle, illegalists etc tiqqun is just really a redressing of this perspectives with the added critical theory scaffolding

[o well this is ok I guess]

not really. its an attitude that has existed way before foucault. ravachol, reprise individuelle, illegalists etc tiqqun is just really a redressing of this perspectives with the added critical theory scaffolding The attitude of making poetic statements for impact rather than substance? I don't remember ravachol doing much writing, bro.

[Ostrinski]

bmh, I thought you liked Tiqqun?

[Prometeo liberado]

If these people had planted gold daffodils and sewn love into each and every hamlet y'all would still find a reason to hate. Isn't there a World of Warcraft game you should be playing? Hmm, fed up people who are not going to take it anymore finally decide to stand behind their beliefs. Hmm, walking the walk and talking the talk. A very foreign language here on revleft for sure. Pretty sure.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If these people had planted gold daffodils and sewn love into each and every hamlet y'all would still find a reason to hate. Isn't there a World of Warcraft game you should be playing? Hmm, fed up people who are not going to take it anymore finally decide to stand behind their beliefs. Hmm, walking the walk and talking the talk. A very foreign language here on revleft for sure. Pretty sure.

That's just moralism. Someone's doing SOMETHING. Stalin's doing SOMETHING to stop the fascists. Che's doing SOMETHING. Well the question is: what are they doing and does it help advance the cause of working class self-emancipation? Taken alone, IMO a whole campaign of actions like this would do nothing to help the working class organize itself better.

I think it's a reflection of the gulf between a fast-growing radicalization of a minority of people and the lack of any independant oppositional mass organization in the class and lack of consiousness. This also happened in the late 1960s when many radicalizing people looked at the world and thought revolution was coming, but there was no mass working class movement and it disoriented people and made them look to students or only oppressed minorities or revolutionaries themselves to lead the revolution.

Terrorists, fascists, the military domestic or forgin, and natural disasters, plagues, and the bosses themselves can and have "disrupted" the status quo. What's differnet about the working class is that while we too can disrupt, only we can make the system function. This is our power and we need to be able to organize ourselves to sieze it. Induvidual acts don't help us do that, disruptions don't help us do that - class struggle helps us to learn how to organize together and fight.

[The Douche]

nobody is saying this. i am a very masculine person in general. i was raised up in the mexican northwest, and a lot of behaviors that are considered feminine i can't really intuit them and i have to intellectually wrap my mind around them in order to make sense of them. i hate "sensitive male feminists" and i find them suspicious and phony.

however, it doesn't take much thought to realize that if the white dudes in the group are the ones dominating the discourse then something needs to be done about it. there is nothing feminine about that, its just reasonable.

Jesus christ dude. Does your argument really rest on the gender role binary? For fucking real? Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.

So you think women can and should be involved in every facet of the struggle, but then you turn around and say "women don't like it when people start yelling and getting hurt".

[Ravachol]

Jesus christ dude. Does your argument really rest on the gender role binary? For fucking real? Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.

So you think women can and should be involved in every facet of the struggle, but then you turn around and say "women don't like it when people start yelling and getting hurt".

I don't think that is what he's arguing. I disagree with his argument nonetheless but I think he's arguing women and men are conditioned into particular social roles, something nobody here disputes I would hope. Within those patterns, 'violence' (whatever that may be) and rhetorical/conversational loudness are typical male patterns to which women are conditioned to be submissive so its something people should take into account if they wish to avoid reproducing subtle forms of domination within the struggle.

But I don't think that qualifies as an argument against the patterns in and of themselves. First of all because that would in fact only strengthen the gender roles. It also doesn't hold as strongly with everyone or everywhere in the world. There are plenty of cultures where acts of violence are perfectly normal for women to parttake in (regardless of all the other patriarchal baggage they have to deal with) and as far as individuals go, I know plenty of women who are far less squeamish about it than most men. In Italy during the '70s there were lots of armed feminist nuclei and groups who torched prostitution rackets, beat up pimps and shot rapists through the knees. There are accounts of them actively discouraging male comrades from solving these problems 'for them' in order to counter the male role-monopoly on the exercise of violence.

If anything, trying to broaden the field of struggle actually mitigates this if a cult of 'men of action' is avoided, with all the machismo involved (if you want to see a particularly awful example portrayed in media watch the 2010 mini-series Carlos).

[The Douche]

I don't think that is what he's arguing. I disagree with his argument nonetheless but I think he's arguing women and men are conditioned into particular social roles, something nobody here disputes I would hope. Within those patterns, 'violence' (whatever that may be) and rhetorical/conversational loudness are typical male patterns to which women are conditioned to be submissive so its something people should take into account if they wish to avoid reproducing subtle forms of domination within the struggle.

But I don't think that qualifies as an argument against the patterns in and of themselves. First of all because that would in fact only strengthen the gender roles. It also doesn't hold as strongly with everyone or everywhere in the world. There are plenty of cultures where acts of violence are perfectly normal for women to parttake in (regardless of all the other patriarchal baggage they have to deal with) and as far as individuals go, I know plenty of women who are far less squeamish about it than most men. In Italy during the '70s there were lots of armed feminist nuclei and groups who torched prostitution rackets, beat up pimps and shot rapists through the knees. There are accounts of them actively discouraging male comrades from solving these problems 'for them' in order to counter the male role-monopoly on the exercise of violence.

If anything, trying to broaden the field of struggle actually mitigates this if a cult of 'men of action' is avoided, with all the machismo involved (if you want to see a particularly awful example portrayed in media watch the 2010 mini-series Carlos).


That would make more sense.

Sorry, BMH.


But I guess I don't much understand the argument, mainly because I've never known a radical women who would allow herself to be quieted by men. Most of the non-radical women I know wouldn't allow it either... I would say I don't know how much I believe the assertion, but I think that I am just lucky to have cool friends and acquaintances.

[Prometeo liberado]

That's just moralism. Someone's doing SOMETHING. Stalin's doing SOMETHING to stop the fascists. Che's doing SOMETHING. Well the question is: what are they doing and does it help advance the cause of working class self-emancipation? Taken alone, IMO a whole campaign of actions like this would do nothing to help the working class organize itself better.

I think it's a reflection of the gulf between a fast-growing radicalization of a minority of people and the lack of any independent oppositional mass organization in the class and lack of consciousness. This also happened in the late 1960s when many radicalizing people looked at the world and thought revolution was coming, but there was no mass working class movement and it disoriented people and made them look to students or only oppressed minorities or revolutionaries themselves to lead the revolution.

Terrorists, fascists, the military domestic or forgin, and natural disasters, plagues, and the bosses themselves can and have "disrupted" the status quo. What's different about the working class is that while we too can disrupt, only we can make the system function. This is our power and we need to be able to organize ourselves to seize it. Individual acts don't help us do that, disruptions don't help us do that - class struggle helps us to learn how to organize together and fight.

The only "Something" I see here is the incessant need to look at every action and criticize "Something".

As far as "leading" or being looked at as "leaders" you are reading much too much into this. Not any where have I read that these people see themselves as leaders. Acts like this are a reaction though of the larger problem of the working class's failure to realize it's own power. These small pockets of resistance are by people who simply will not wait to be bled out or lead out of their miserable conditions.

Theorize all you want but I'm quite sure that at the least there are a few pigs in Mexico that are thinking twice about their chosen line of work now.

[black magick hustla]

The attitude of making poetic statements for impact rather than substance? I don't remember ravachol doing much writing, bro.

i dont mean the "writing". i mean the totalizing philosophy behind insurrectionism. read about la reprise individuelle

[Art Vandelay]

The only "Something" I see here is the incessant need to look at every action and criticize "Something".

As far as "leading" or being looked at as "leaders" you are reading much too much into this. Not any where have I read that these people see themselves as leaders. Acts like this are a reaction though of the larger problem of the working class's failure to realize it's own power. These small pockets of resistance are by people who simply will not wait to be bled out or lead out of their miserable conditions.

Theorize all you want but I'm quite sure that at the least there are a few pigs in Mexico that are thinking twice about their chosen line of work now.

I highly doubt it jbeard, pigs get wasted everyday in Mexico. If anyone would make them think twice about their line of work, it would be the cartels, not a couple anarchists.

[Ravachol]

I highly doubt it jbeard, pigs get wasted everyday in Mexico. If anyone would make them think twice about their line of work, it would be the cartels, not a couple anarchists.

The cartels don't make them think twice about their line of work, they simply make them think twice about their employer.

[Prometeo liberado]

I highly doubt it jbeard, pigs get wasted everyday in Mexico. If anyone would make them think twice about their line of work, it would be the cartels, not a couple anarchists.

If pigs are getting wasted everyday, and they are, don't you think it has an effect on their psyche? Throwing a few anarchist hits into can only make it that much worse, no?

[Art Vandelay]

If pigs are getting wasted everyday, and they are, don't you think it has an effect on their psyche? Throwing a few anarchist hits into can only make it that much worse, no?

Perhaps if this is a reoccurring thing, but I have a feeling that if they start whacking off the wrong cops (ones on the payroll of the cartel) then there might be hell to pay and could spell the end of the insurrectionist movement in Mexico.

[Prometeo liberado]

Perhaps if this is a reoccurring thing, but I have a feeling that if they start whacking off the wrong cops (ones on the payroll of the cartel) then there might be hell to pay and could spell the end of the insurrectionist movement in Mexico.

So there are right cops and "wrong" cops? Hmm, that's quicksand you're walking into right there.

As for spelling the end of the insurgency. Well there have been armed groups leftists preparing in the hills of Mexico since the Revolution. Not the army, U.S. training and funding, nor the various branches of state security have managed to stop them thus far so I highly doubt a few assassinations will either.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

and didn't some Mexican anarchist get his arm blown off when a bomb he was carrying prematurely exploded or something?

Luciano something. I know his nickname was Tortuga.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Well there have been armed groups leftists preparing in the hills of Mexico since the Revolution. Not the army, U.S. training and funding, nor the various branches of state security have managed to stop them thus far so I highly doubt a few assassinations will either.

Really? Any info on these groups?

[o well this is ok I guess]

i dont mean the "writing". i mean the totalizing philosophy behind insurrectionism. read about la reprise individuelle What is the writing behind la reprise individuelle?

[Prometeo liberado]

Really? Any info on these groups?

EPR, ERIP and FALPMG are the first that come to mind. Not to mention the EZLN of course. I have been going to Mexico since the early 70's and remember my parents talking about what was "in the hills". A good read for you may be John Reed's INSURGENT MEXICO: JOHN REED 1914. Gives you and idea of why it is that the culture of rebel activity there may be a hard one to squash. Also there are some good books on the heavy rebel activity during the late 50's and into the mid 70's.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

EPR, ERIP and FALPMG are the first that come to mind. Not to mention the EZLN of course. I have been going to Mexico since the early 70's and remember my parents talking about what was "in the hills". A good read for you may be John Reed's INSURGENT MEXICO: JOHN REED 1914. Gives you and idea of why it is that the culture of rebel activity there may be one to squash. Also there are some good books on the heavy rebel activity during the late 50's and into the mid 70's.

Thanks! I find all this mysterious, insurrectionary, (mostly) anarchist stuff really interesting.

[Prometeo liberado]

Thanks! I find all this mysterious, insurrectionary, (mostly) anarchist stuff really interesting.

You have a very large Mexican population there in Chicago. I'm sure you have no problem finding respective their support groups.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If pigs are getting wasted everyday, and they are, don't you think it has an effect on their psyche? Throwing a few anarchist hits into can only make it that much worse, no?Sure I guess in the same way that spilling a glass of water makes a flood worse.

But again, and more importantly, how does this show workers how to actuall build their own ability to defend themselves on a class basis?


The only "Something" I see here is the incessant need to look at every action and criticize "Something".

As far as "leading" or being looked at as "leaders" you are reading much too much into this. Not any where have I read that these people see themselves as leaders. Acts like this are a reaction though of the larger problem of the working class's failure to realize it's own power. These small pockets of resistance are by people who simply will not wait to be bled out or lead out of their miserable conditions.

Theorize all you want but I'm quite sure that at the least there are a few pigs in Mexico that are thinking twice about their chosen line of work now. This is not "theory" in the abstract, I'm talking about TACTICS in practice and I have already stated that I think the actual way workers can defend themselves is by creating their own organizations and building their own power. In the US this might look like neighborhoods organizing against police violence, coalitions involving and led by people directly impacted and linking up with other social forces. This is how workers, not frustrated induviduals can create a class fight-back against SYSTEMS of oppression. Kill one cop and there's another - the problem isn't induvidual cops, it's the whole system of police. Further the problem of class rule isn't simply repression - it's hegemony and "common sense" for the most part right now.


Insurrections don't train people how to rule society as workers - it trains people to be soldiers and have specialized skills. It's inherently elitist because those with the most "will" to do these acts are therefore the "most revolutionary" and those with the most ability and resources to have an underground organization will then have the most skills and ability to carry out this kind of fight. Further, again, it does NOTHING to help workers figure out themselves that they should run society let alone begin to create networks that could potentially allow for this kind of rule. Insurrectioary tactics are best against direct military occupations - and really they can create a stalemate at best. Compare insurgency in Iraq to mass upheaval backed by a strike-wave in Egypt - which did more to immobilize the power of police while at the same time organizing regular neigborhoods to patrol themselves and keep the cops and vigilantes out? Hell compare some of the community based battles like Faluja to the underground "professional" insurrectionist groups just within Iraq during the war. Which type of struggle is more potentially the source of popular organization with the confidence and practice of running their own lives - which would probably only produce a new military rule or new top-down government? If a regime is particularly weak, they might be able to topple it if they are really organized Insurrectionists like Fidel and Che... but then who comes into that vaccume? Histroy suggests that a passive working class will never just step into that role because of the actions of others from above or outside (parlements, coups, or Soviet tanks). So most likely it would be the Insurrectionist who come to power and if they don't then some other social forces will take up that space.

I'm not swayed by this "at least it's SOMETHING" argument because I don't think it accomplishes ANYTHING in regards to working-class self emancipation. On the other hand in the past year I have been part of movements that fought against evictions, shut down the port of Oakland, knocked the city government onto it's heels and into short-lived open disaray and last week a coalition that shut down a city hall meeting and was led by Oakland residents whose family members had been shot by OPD. These are "moderst" somethings but the seeds for a more widespread movement of working class people: rank and file workers tired of the policies of their conservative unions; liberals disabused of illusions in the Democrats both in Washington and in City Hall; people from majority black neighborhoods in Oakland organizing against OPD.

[Prometeo liberado]

Sure I guess in the same way that spilling a glass of water makes a flood worse.

But again, and more importantly, how does this show workers how to actuall build their own ability to defend themselves on a class basis?

This is not "theory" in the abstract, I'm talking about TACTICS in practice and I have already stated that I think the actual way workers can defend themselves is by creating their own organizations and building their own power. In the US this might look like neighborhoods organizing against police violence, coalitions involving and led by people directly impacted and linking up with other social forces. This is how workers, not frustrated induviduals can create a class fight-back against SYSTEMS of oppression. Kill one cop and there's another - the problem isn't induvidual cops, it's the whole system of police. Further the problem of class rule isn't simply repression - it's hegemony and "common sense" for the most part right now.


Insurrections don't train people how to rule society as workers - it trains people to be soldiers and have specialized skills. It's inherently elitist because those with the most "will" to do these acts are therefore the "most revolutionary" and those with the most ability and resources to have an underground organization will then have the most skills and ability to carry out this kind of fight. Further, again, it does NOTHING to help workers figure out themselves that they should run society let alone begin to create networks that could potentially allow for this kind of rule. Insurrectioary tactics are best against direct military occupations - and really they can create a stalemate at best. Compare insurgency in Iraq to mass upheaval backed by a strike-wave in Egypt - which did more to immobilize the power of police while at the same time organizing regular neigborhoods to patrol themselves and keep the cops and vigilantes out? Hell compare some of the community based battles like Faluja to the underground "professional" insurrectionist groups just within Iraq during the war. Which type of struggle is more potentially the source of popular organization with the confidence and practice of running their own lives - which would probably only produce a new military rule or new top-down government? If a regime is particularly weak, they might be able to topple it if they are really organized Insurrectionists like Fidel and Che... but then who comes into that vaccume? Histroy suggests that a passive working class will never just step into that role because of the actions of others from above or outside (parlements, coups, or Soviet tanks). So most likely it would be the Insurrectionist who come to power and if they don't then some other social forces will take up that space.

I'm not swayed by this "at least it's SOMETHING" argument because I don't think it accomplishes ANYTHING in regards to working-class self emancipation. On the other hand in the past year I have been part of movements that fought against evictions, shut down the port of Oakland, knocked the city government onto it's heels and into short-lived open disaray and last week a coalition that shut down a city hall meeting and was led by Oakland residents whose family members had been shot by OPD. These are "moderst" somethings but the seeds for a more widespread movement of working class people: rank and file workers tired of the policies of their conservative unions; liberals disabused of illusions in the Democrats both in Washington and in City Hall; people from majority black neighborhoods in Oakland organizing against OPD.

They do not portend to be "showing workers..." anything. They are merely defending themselves by taking a proactive approach. They are not trying to rewrite the Manifesto here so chill out.

As for your last paragraph I am very happy for you in your activism, but please let's refrain from making this a biography of what good and proper lefties we are. I get it. I'll assume that most users on here contribute what they can, where they can. As did those wonderful people with the great aim did in Mexico.

[Jimmie Higgins]

As for your last paragraph I am very happy for you in your activism, but please let's refrain from making this a biography of what good and proper lefties we are. I get it. I'll assume that most users on here contribute what they can, where they can. As did those wonderful people with the great aim did in Mexico.My contributions are modest, these small struggles at best are a beginning, but that was not the point. The point was that these kinds of actions that are possible now will help people fight their own fights as a class.

A action like this shooting, however, will not help class struggle much (edit: in present circumstances and outside of any relationship to a class struggle). This is as effective at being self-defense against cops as driving a Prius is a defense against climate change... individual strategies that might make the actor seem like they are doing something, but really don't amount to much in terms of class struggle.

[#FF0000]

As for your last paragraph I am very happy for you in your activism, but please let's refrain from making this a biography of what good and proper lefties we are. I get it. I'll assume that most users on here contribute what they can, where they can. As did those wonderful people with the great aim did in Mexico.

Nah I don't think they contributed much.

[The Douche]

These people saw an opportunity and they took it. Guerrilla/insurgent warfare dictates that you act when you can and how you can, in order to inflict the most damage on your enemies while sustaining the least amount of loss possible.

These folks probably figured they could axe a couple cops and get away with it because most of the attention would be on the cartels. This is an escalation of anarchist tactics in Mexico, and it corresponds with actions elsewhere, and is also contributing to the myth (in the Sorel-ian sense of the word) of global civil war by claiming it in solidarity with other combatants, and signing it in the name of a fighting organization. I think this sould be seen as them cutting their teeth, and as such, it is positive.

[Ele'ill]

We wouldn't want radical action to soil the posh resume of the class struggle.

So, I'm not responding below specifically about blasting cops but this same line of thinking has come up regarding other actions and stuff so it's just a generalized response since your conversational points were about the same.



Sure I guess in the same way that spilling a glass of water makes a flood worse.



But again, and more importantly, how does this show workers how to actuall build their own ability to defend themselves on a class basis?

Why is it one or the other? Not everybody wants to do one, the other or both. When specific demands regarding contribution starts I get a little queasy.



This is not "theory" in the abstract, I'm talking about TACTICS in practice and I have already stated that I think the actual way workers can defend themselves is by creating their own organizations and building their own power. In the US this might look like neighborhoods organizing against police violence, coalitions involving and led by people directly impacted and linking up with other social forces. This is how workers, not frustrated induviduals can create a class fight-back against SYSTEMS of oppression. Kill one cop and there's another - the problem isn't induvidual cops, it's the whole system of police. Further the problem of class rule isn't simply repression - it's hegemony and "common sense" for the most part right now.

It's not one or the other. Direct action and community building aren't opposites.



It's inherently elitist because those with the most "will" to do these acts are therefore the "most revolutionary"

This is your own insecurity and the only person who has created a hierarchy of revolutionary greatness is you.





I'm not swayed by this "at least it's SOMETHING" argument




because I don't think it accomplishes ANYTHING in regards to working-class self emancipation.


On the other hand in the past year I have been part of movements that fought against evictions, shut down the port of Oakland, knocked the city government onto it's heels and into short-lived open disaray and last week a coalition that shut down a city hall meeting and was led by Oakland residents whose family members had been shot by OPD.


These are "moderst" somethings but the seeds for a more widespread movement of working class people: rank and file workers tired of the policies of their conservative unions; liberals disabused of illusions in the Democrats both in Washington and in City Hall; people from majority black neighborhoods in Oakland organizing against OPD.

[Ele'ill]

A action like this shooting, however, will not help class struggle much (edit: in present circumstances and outside of any relationship to a class struggle). This is as effective at being self-defense against cops as driving a Prius is a defense against climate change... individual strategies that might make the actor seem like they are doing something, but really don't amount to much in terms of class struggle.

I think there's a big difference between understanding why cops got killed, how it can happen within society that rulers could at some point get the gat and moaning about how it didn't fit into a prescribed set of rules that have to be set up perfectly because honestly the reality of the world that you're imposing on others and on pockets of resistance isn't their reality, it's yours. The last thing we should be doing is attempting to de-escalate areas of resistance in replace of a more passive 'beginning' or whatever. I'm 100% positive that the time and effort you put into organizing can be applied to these areas of resistance wherever they might be and that it will change on its own, organically, based upon the decision of those actually involved. I mean that with respect jimmie H., you're obviously positive, smart and involved.

[Os Cangaceiros]

So is there any reporting at all of this in the "mainstream media"?

This is the original story of the three dead:

http://www.zocalo.com.mx/seccion/articulo/reportan-tres-muertos-y-un-policia-desaparecido-en-valle-de-chalco

[The Douche]

So is there any reporting at all of this in the "mainstream media"?

This is the original story of the three dead:

http://www.zocalo.com.mx/seccion/articulo/reportan-tres-muertos-y-un-policia-desaparecido-en-valle-de-chalco

I dunno, I think its entirely possible that the anarchist element of this is fabricated, but that has nothing to do with the theoretical discussion around the incident, imo.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I dunno, I think its entirely possible that the anarchist element of this is fabricated, but that has nothing to do with the theoretical discussion around the incident, imo.

Maybe so, but I think it would still be pretty silly for a bunch of intense debate to crop up around an incident that never actually happened.

[The Douche]

Maybe so, but I think it would still be pretty silly for a bunch of intense debate to crop up around an incident that never actually happened.

Intense debate around the issue of clandestine attacks on the state is better than "what do you guys think about kronstadt?".

[Prometeo liberado]

A action like this shooting, however, will not help class struggle much (edit: in present circumstances and outside of any relationship to a class struggle

I don't know how else to make this clear. They are not trying to "..help class struggle...", nor are they a hinderance to it. They are simply realizing there own power which is the FIRST step towards revolution. This is an action. Plain and simple. Does it fit neatly into your theoretical cosmology? Obviously not.

Mari3L had it right with this post:


The last thing we should be doing is attempting to de-escalate areas of resistance in replace of a more passive 'beginning' or whatever. I'm 100% positive that the time and effort you put into organizing can be applied to these areas of resistance wherever they might be and that it will change on its own, organically, based upon the decision of those actually involved. I mean that with respect jimmie H., you're obviously positive, smart and involved.


The movement is about diverse tactsics and many fronts. Why destroy one in order to prove the other correct?

[Jimmie Higgins]

We wouldn't want radical action to soil the posh resume of the class struggle.Raidcal action, yes it's radical liberal induvidualist action: I'm going to chop down this tree of police repression by cutting off 3 leafs. I'm going to "do my part" by reducing my carbon footprint!


Why is it one or the other? Not everybody wants to do one, the other or both. When specific demands regarding contribution starts I get a little queasy.I'm speaking of tactics, what will make conditions for working class self-emancipation better - not what I'd like to see. I'd like to see the revolution come in on a cloud of weed smoke and free video games, but that's not likely either.


It's not one or the other. Direct action and community building aren't opposites. It's not really my point, I'm not comparing two types of actions, I am TRYING to show how there are class-based strategies and individualist strategies and individualist strategies do not help the working class liberate itself.


This is your own insecurity and the only person who has created a hierarchy of revolutionary greatness is you.Again, tactical - not preference. I'd much rather that we were having a general strike in Oakland rather than doing something small like trying to build anti-police brutality coalitions and so on.

Tactics are not dogmas, they are flexible: sometimes a general strike is radical, sometimes it's actually not because maybe it's controlled by trade union leaders and purposefully symbolic only.


I think there's a big difference between understanding why cops got killed, how it can happen within society that rulers could at some point get the gat and moaning about how it didn't fit into a prescribed set of rules that have to be set up perfectly because honestly the reality of the world that you're imposing on others and on pockets of resistance isn't their reality, it's yours. The last thing we should be doing is attempting to de-escalate areas of resistance in replace of a more passive 'beginning' or whatever. I'm 100% positive that the time and effort you put into organizing can be applied to these areas of resistance wherever they might be and that it will change on its own, organically, based upon the decision of those actually involved. I mean that with respect jimmie H., you're obviously positive, smart and involved. We're discussing the use and possible value of tactics such as this - right? So I think I'm well within the bounds of that discussion. I am making demands of no one other than fellow members here to discuss the usefulness or lack of usefulness of these tactics. I don't think we should denounce this or try and prevent it, but I do think we need to discuss these tactics among people who want to see working class self-emancipation.

If someone shoots up their office do we glorify them for taking down the bosses? I generally just see it as a consequence of a crappy system and pressure at the job and the daily anger and frustrations of the way we have to live. People shoot cops, Mixon shot cops in Oakland. He wanted to try and prevent going to jail for the rest of his life - this is a natural (and frankly I'm surprised that this doesn't happen more often) result of concentrated policing and racial profiling and the prison system.

But are any of these things a way forward for the class? No, they are are the desperation of induviduals who have no way of really impacting the system so they go for whatever is closest. It's like the angry tenant farmer scene from Grapes of Wrath: "they took my farm, I'm going to the bank and shooting them" Well, you'll only find some tellers there and maybe a manager, but they didn't take your farm. "Well I'm going to go to the central branch and..." No, they're just doing their job and the CEOs in New York are the ones who tell em what to do. "Well, I'm going to NYC...". In other words we can't fight SYSTEMS as autonomous individuals or more than we can induvidually stop buying WalMart and think we are impacting the capitalist system.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't know how else to make this clear. They are not trying to "..help class struggle...", nor are they a hinderance to it. They are simply realizing there own power which is the FIRST step towards revolution. This is an action. Plain and simple. Does it fit neatly into your theoretical cosmology? Obviously not.Then why justify or glorify or promote ideas and tactics which are irrelevant. Yeah, I did my part for the revolution they other day, I read this really deep philosophy book man. Hey, I'm just realizing my own power."

Realizing individual power is the first step to revolution or counter-revolution to fascism to reformism to anything. If folks here want to see working class self-liberation though, then the point should be workers realizing their power as WORKERS and as a class not induviduals atomized in society.


The movement is about diverse tactsics and many fronts. Why destroy one in order to prove the other correct?Diverse tactics are fine... as long as they actually are beneficial for working class self-emancipation. I mean again, wouldn't you mock someone who said they were "doing their part to stop the war" by writing really nasty letters to the President or by not driving a car?

Why are those tactics useless IMO? Because they are individualist strategies which make not systemic impact and don't help workers to organize themselves. More flashy versions of this, like shooting a cop for ideological reasons, are the same. The style may appear more radical, but in substance, these tactics are closer to "shopping local" or being vegan.

[Prometeo liberado]

But are any of these things a way forward for the class? No, they are are the desperation of individuals who have no way of really impacting the system so they go for whatever is closest

LAST TIME I attempt to explain this. By asking the above question it seems that you are assuming that they are indeed trying find a "..way forward for the class?" If they are not, and they aren't, then how can you pose this question. It's not relevant here. That's what I'm trying to get across. Are they "individuals who have no way of really impacting the system". I have said repeatedly that they do not come off as presumptuous enough. So why are these questions posed? I would assume that because they do not fit into your predefined parameters that your questions must also reflect your inflexibility. This isn't even a matter of dogma so much as it an inability to just say "it ain't my cup of tea" and move on.

[Ele'ill]

then the point should be workers realizing their power as WORKERS and as a class not induviduals atomized in society.

Some things don't take an entire class to sabotage.


Diverse tactics are fine... as long as they actually are beneficial for working class self-emancipation. I mean again, wouldn't you mock someone who said they were "doing their part to stop the war" by writing really nasty letters to the President or by not driving a car?

The utility of militant direct action is much different than that of writing letters and in fact I'd consider a lot of union actions to be akin to writing letters and not really building class consciousness or momentum at all.


Why are those tactics useless IMO? Because they are individualist strategies which make not systemic impact and don't help workers to organize themselves.

What? So anything that doesn't 'help workers to organize themselves' is a bad thing and is useless so what about when they're organized then? What if these direct actions you complain about on the forum here were affinity actions comprised of workers? Neighbors? They of course are, stop complaining.

[Ele'ill]

Raidcal action, yes it's radical liberal induvidualist action: I'm going to chop down this tree of police repression by cutting off 3 leafs. I'm going to "do my part" by reducing my carbon footprint!

Pretty sure I already mentioned as like the first line of one of my recent posts that I'm not talking about killing people because this isn't a new conversation between us and I don't think it's really about this specific event. I think you have an issue with anything happening outside of a bureaucratic monolith.


If someone shoots up their office do we glorify them for taking down the bosses?

This is probably one of the more extreme theoretical situations and I of course can't even give a hypothetical yes or no whether sympathy would be felt but I don't think I would glorify it. If someone shut down their office or warehouse as an individual or pair or affinity then I can say yes absolutely glorify the hell out of it.



But are any of these things a way forward for the class?

Yes they are, small affinity direct actions are. Are they a way forward regarding mass mobilizations and larger networking of different workplaces/industries and general strikes Yes they are, I think they are a part of it. All by themselves? No but that isn't their purpose.


It's like the angry tenant farmer scene from Grapes of Wrath: "they took my farm, I'm going to the bank and shooting them" Well, you'll only find some tellers there and maybe a manager, but they didn't take your farm. "Well I'm going to go to the central branch and..." No, they're just doing their job and the CEOs in New York are the ones who tell em what to do. "Well, I'm going to NYC...".

Again this position resembles our past conversations that weren't about killing and I'd like to point out something that all those places have in common and that would be that they interact with capital and that they can be disrupted.



In other words we can't fight SYSTEMS as autonomous individuals or more than we can induvidually stop buying WalMart and think we are impacting the capitalist system.

Another poor comparison for the same reasons as your 'letter writing' example. I can't say I've actually met any liberals even that said they were no longer shopping at walmart in order to cause major disruptions (not saying they aren't out there of course). Usually it was to make them feel better but whatever I think this is irrelevant and you're just picking some weird cliche faux action to compare to massive revolutionary systemic rupture which is silly.

[Jimmie Higgins]

LAST TIME I attempt to explain this. By asking the above question it seems that you are assuming that they are indeed trying find a "..way forward for the class?" If they are not, and they aren't, then how can you pose this question. It's not relevant here. That's what I'm trying to get across. Are they "individuals who have no way of really impacting the system". I have said repeatedly that they do not come off as presumptuous enough. So why are these questions posed? I would assume that because they do not fit into your predefined parameters that your questions must also reflect your inflexibility. This isn't even a matter of dogma so much as it an inability to just say "it ain't my cup of tea" and move on.If the question: "Does this or does this not help advance working class self-emancipation" is too narrow, why are we discussing this on a supposedly pro-working class revolution website? And then why are people outside our website coming up with theorhetical and stratigic justifications for why these kinds of actions are advancing class liberation?

If this action is not relevant to working class self-liberation, then isn't this case then it is the equivalent situation as some person flipping out and shooting their co-workers because they are frustrated. Or a tornedo that knocks a poll over and kills a cop? And then, why are we talking about this in the Politics forum of a poltical discussion site beyond: "hey look at that, ins't that an intersting thing, oh well ACAB!"?

If that was the extend of this discussion among radicals, then who cares. It's like the guy who ran a tractor over some cop cars - interesting and a natural result of the nature of this system and that's about it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Some things don't take an entire class to sabotage.No, but liberation from capitalism requires the self-action of workers acting collectivly for thier class interests.


The utility of militant direct action is much different than that of writing letters and in fact I'd consider a lot of union actions to be akin to writing letters and not really building class consciousness or momentum at all. Ok, sure - actually the union beurocracy does worse than that by activly supporting the Democrats. But my point is the difference between an induvidual strategy and a class one. Writing angry letters is different than a radical induvidual action in style but, in my opinion, not in substance. Underlying both actions is the idea that my actions as a LONE induvidual (or a group of people acting as induviduals) will make an impact on this system. It's not a collective strategy and it is totally divorced from class struggle and politics since the only difference concretely between a fascist shooting a cop and a radical is their ideology and intent. So again, induvidual WILL, not class power and self-leadership.


What? So anything that doesn't 'help workers to organize themselves' is a bad thing and is useless so what about when they're organized then? What if these direct actions you complain about on the forum here were affinity actions comprised of workers? Neighbors? They of course are, stop complaining.Yes. Egyptians shooting cops during an uprising in defense of the popular power that was created is not only defendsible but often necissary. Rank and file workers defending thier pickets from cops or national guard should use any means necissary. Black people in the 1960s shooting a cop after an uprising against police brutality is also auxiluary to a mass struggle.

It's the substance, the connection to the class that is important, not the style of the action.


I think you have an issue with anything happening outside of a bureaucratic monolith.LOL, comrade, please. Oh no, it's not the poltical argument I've been making through all these posts, it's some hangup of mine :P

Monolithic beurocracies aren't very good at allowing workers to organize themselves - unless they do so in opposition to an unaccountable beurocracy. Top-down organization like the current state of trade unions also treat workers as passive recipients - but rather than the recipients of "disruptions" by radials, they are the passive recipents of negotiation between a different kind of specialist: the union negotiator or beurocrat.

Again and again, the point is class self-activity on a class (not induvidual) basis. Strikes under present circumstances are a fine start because at least some workers are fighting to not be screwed as much - but under current condsitions it will probably be pretty limited and workers won't have all that much space to begin to organize themselves from below or radicalize. A Strike like in Chicago is better because it's a class-struggle strategy as consiously opposed to a negotiation/accomodation strategy - and there was a great deal of organizing by workers from below to make this happen. A wildcat strike or a rank and file organization formed in opposition to union leadership is even better because workers are very much making their own way and organizing themselves and learning through their own experience how to lead themselves. A wildcat general strike is even better because it does many of these same things but on much more of a class basis and on a larger scale: workers have to begin to organize their own defense, their own way to distribute food and other needed items, and have to essentially start to run a chunk of the city themselves on a very basic level. I'm not saying things are A, B, C as in some kind of formula for class-power, these actions always have to be considered within the contect of the struggle and forces at the time - but it's just to point out that 1) I am not arguing for beurocracy, but self-activity 2) collective actions on a class basis create the conditions to potentially allow workers to organize themselves in their own class interests. This is something induvidualist strategies can't do.

This is not automatic and of course there are other forces always acting on people trying to get them to negotiate or whatnot, but in all these kinds of things workers as workers are the force and protagonists and can potentially learn in practice that yes, our bosses need us but we don't need bosses.

What does some clandestine action do? It doesn't even show people how to sabotage or wage insurrection - it maybe sets an example... but an example of what? Anyone can sabotage, there is not class power inherent in blocking a bridge or disrupting things - maybe some workers might be inspired but fascist could just as easily use the same tactics, so there really isn't any real connection to how workers might be able to run society themselves.


Again this position resembles our past conversations that weren't about killing and I'd like to point out something that all those places have in common and that would be that they interact with capital and that they can be disrupted. I think this is the philospohical root of the difference of views. Disruption doesn't do anything for self-liberation. Hurricane Katrina disrupted quite a bit, the Tsunami, 9/11, WWI, WWII, the atom bomb, etc. Honestly how much "disruption" does working class self-liberation take? Do people here really think that isolated actions of radicals are going to produce more disruption than WWII or even 9/11?

No, disruption does nothing for workers, workers are still passive recipients of the actions of enlightened radicals in this formulation. When society does grind to a hault, who comes out on top? Whoever either has the most guns or whover is most organized and can control production comes out on top. Worker's aren't in power because they are too dim to figure out how to shoot a gun or "disrupt" things - they arn't in power because we are disorganized, most of us don't even trust other people or think that society could even be any other way.

Disruption just happens in capitalism anyway - crisis, war, possible ecological destruction. By itself none of these disruptions will actually produce class liberation - that needs to be the consious goal of millions of workers who have already created ways of working together democratically from the bottom up.

[The Douche]

Jimmie, I don't know if at any point in this thread you've been able to understand that the individuals who did this do not consider themselves, nor do they wish to become, leaders of the working class.

Actions like this don't make any sense if you want to build a mass party and labor movement. But thats not what these people are interested in.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Jimmie, I don't know if at any point in this thread you've been able to understand that the individuals who did this do not consider themselves, nor do they wish to become, leaders of the working class.

Actions like this don't make any sense if you want to build a mass party and labor movement. But thats not what these people are interested in.

Where did I argue that? I'm asking are these strategies going to help working class self-leadership and organization? I never argued: these tactics won't help the actors in this event become the leaders over workers or of a working class movement.

Anyway, OK, If these kinds of actions don't matter in regards to workers being able to run society themselves collectively, then why are we discussing them, why are other people writing books and theories to justify why this is the way forward for liberation?

We don't have threads about Cartels killing cops? Why not? They've killed more of them.

[Ele'ill]

No, but liberation from capitalism requires the self-action of workers acting collectivly for thier class interests.

Ok, sure - actually the union beurocracy does worse than that by activly supporting the Democrats. But my point is the difference between an induvidual strategy and a class one. Writing angry letters is different than a radical induvidual action in style but, in my opinion, not in substance. Underlying both actions is the idea that my actions as a LONE induvidual (or a group of people acting as induviduals) will make an impact on this system. It's not a collective strategy and it is totally divorced from class struggle and politics since the only difference concretely between a fascist shooting a cop and a radical is their ideology and intent. So again, induvidual WILL, not class power and self-leadership.

Yes. Egyptians shooting cops during an uprising in defense of the popular power that was created is not only defendsible but often necissary. Rank and file workers defending thier pickets from cops or national guard should use any means necissary. Black people in the 1960s shooting a cop after an uprising against police brutality is also auxiluary to a mass struggle.

It's the substance, the connection to the class that is important, not the style of the action.

LOL, comrade, please. Oh no, it's not the poltical argument I've been making through all these posts, it's some hangup of mine :P

Monolithic beurocracies aren't very good at allowing workers to organize themselves - unless they do so in opposition to an unaccountable beurocracy. Top-down organization like the current state of trade unions also treat workers as passive recipients - but rather than the recipients of "disruptions" by radials, they are the passive recipents of negotiation between a different kind of specialist: the union negotiator or beurocrat.

Again and again, the point is class self-activity on a class (not induvidual) basis. Strikes under present circumstances are a fine start because at least some workers are fighting to not be screwed as much - but under current condsitions it will probably be pretty limited and workers won't have all that much space to begin to organize themselves from below or radicalize. A Strike like in Chicago is better because it's a class-struggle strategy as consiously opposed to a negotiation/accomodation strategy - and there was a great deal of organizing by workers from below to make this happen. A wildcat strike or a rank and file organization formed in opposition to union leadership is even better because workers are very much making their own way and organizing themselves and learning through their own experience how to lead themselves. A wildcat general strike is even better because it does many of these same things but on much more of a class basis and on a larger scale: workers have to begin to organize their own defense, their own way to distribute food and other needed items, and have to essentially start to run a chunk of the city themselves on a very basic level. I'm not saying things are A, B, C as in some kind of formula for class-power, these actions always have to be considered within the contect of the struggle and forces at the time - but it's just to point out that 1) I am not arguing for beurocracy, but self-activity 2) collective actions on a class basis create the conditions to potentially allow workers to organize themselves in their own class interests. This is something induvidualist strategies can't do.

This is not automatic and of course there are other forces always acting on people trying to get them to negotiate or whatnot, but in all these kinds of things workers as workers are the force and protagonists and can potentially learn in practice that yes, our bosses need us but we don't need bosses.

What does some clandestine action do? It doesn't even show people how to sabotage or wage insurrection - it maybe sets an example... but an example of what? Anyone can sabotage, there is not class power inherent in blocking a bridge or disrupting things - maybe some workers might be inspired but fascist could just as easily use the same tactics, so there really isn't any real connection to how workers might be able to run society themselves.

I think this is the philospohical root of the difference of views. Disruption doesn't do anything for self-liberation. Hurricane Katrina disrupted quite a bit, the Tsunami, 9/11, WWI, WWII, the atom bomb, etc. Honestly how much "disruption" does working class self-liberation take? Do people here really think that isolated actions of radicals are going to produce more disruption than WWII or even 9/11?

No, disruption does nothing for workers, workers are still passive recipients of the actions of enlightened radicals in this formulation. When society does grind to a hault, who comes out on top? Whoever either has the most guns or whover is most organized and can control production comes out on top. Worker's aren't in power because they are too dim to figure out how to shoot a gun or "disrupt" things - they arn't in power because we are disorganized, most of us don't even trust other people or think that society could even be any other way.

Disruption just happens in capitalism anyway - crisis, war, possible ecological destruction. By itself none of these disruptions will actually produce class liberation - that needs to be the consious goal of millions of workers who have already created ways of working together democratically from the bottom up.

I would consider most militant direct actions against capitalism, the state, to be in worker's class interest. What you're saying is 'I don't want to recognize individual actions' because you feel their impact is insignificant but I don't buy that as your real position because if it was you would have to disregard every smaller action (of any type) up until suddenly this


By itself none of these disruptions will actually produce class liberation - that needs to be the consious goal of millions of workers who have already created ways of working together democratically from the bottom up.

Also on this..


What does some clandestine action do? It doesn't even show people how to sabotage or wage insurrection - it maybe sets an example... but an example of what? Anyone can sabotage, ...

Anyone can attack.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Intense debate around the issue of clandestine attacks on the state is better than "what do you guys think about kronstadt?".

Debates about literally anything contemporary are better than debates about Kronstadt.

The debate about armed struggle and whether it's appropriate or not is such an old one that it almost gives me brain nausea reading about it on this site.

Anyway, I just came back to this thread to post a relevant quote that I like, from Paul Mattick:


For revolutionaries it is psychologically quite difficult, if not impossible, to raise their voices against the futile application of 'revolutionary justice' by terroristic groups and individuals. Even Marx, who despised all forms nihilistic actions, could not help being elated by the terroristic feats of the Russian 'Peoples’ Will.' As a matter of fact, the counter-terror of revolutionary groups cannot be prevented by mere recognition of its futility. Their perpetrators are not moved by the conviction that their actions will lead directly to social change, but by their inability to accept the unchallenged, the perpetual terror of the bourgeoisie unchallenged. And once engaged in illegal terror, the legal terror forces them to continue their activities until the bitter end. This type of people is itself product of the class-ridden society and a response to its increasing brutalization. There is no sense in forming a consensus with the bourgeoisie and condemning their activities from proletarian point of view. It is enough to recognize their futility and to look for more effective ways to overcome the ever-present capitalist terror by the class actions of the proletariat.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I would consider most militant direct actions against capitalism, the state, to be in worker's class interest. What you're saying is 'I don't want to recognize individual actions' because you feel their impact is insignificant but I don't buy that as your real position because if it was you would have to disregard every smaller action (of any type) up until suddenly thisIt's not the size of an act that is how I try and figure out if somthing is tactically useful, it's the relationship of that act to actual working class people and the consiousness of workers at a given time.

Even a small and beurocratically-controlled from above strike is better than no strike in that it forces at least a small amount of the rank and file to activly engage in class struggle. It's problematic because of the relationship of union leadership to workers, but this relationship goes unchallenged if there is no struggle at all. So a small strike can potentially gain some ground which validates at least fighting back as workers, but it can also produce militants within the rank and file who may see the need to activly organize and challenge the misleadership or accomodations of the union leaders: producing wildcats or a struggle to rebuild democratic structures in the union. All of this begins to create ways for workers to network and develop confidence in fighting for their own interests.

Or, in communities, a neighborhood that is victimized by police that organizes community members together against police and forms cop-watch type groups could potentially lead to a broader movement against police practices and it also organized workers along the lines of "cops are our oppressors" to fight together and develop their OWN ability to fight the cops.

By contrast, some anonomous person can shoot a cop and the working class is totally passive in that process. The act on it's own terms (the goal of disruption of the system) is small an futile. The act on the terms and considerations I use to determine what is benifical or not (working class self-organization) is totally supurfluous with no benift to working class self-emancipation.

As in the quote from Mattick, I think these things happen just due to the frustrations of life under capitalism and so my argument is not against that so much as it is against the current trends that are actually putting these actions forward as moving us closer to liberation.

How do we get rid of the state and classes? There needs to be a social force with no interest in maintaining these things and that social force (specifically working class people) needs to build it's own power so that when there is a revolution and a crisis and the rulers can't rule any more, the social vaccume will be filled by working class power, not military power or a class of petty-bourgoise beurocrats or a counter-revolutionary resurgent capitalist class.

Induvidual armed strategies or gurella armies can not "make" workers that self-emancipating force. Taking out a state with these methods (if even possible - insurgencies in history tend to produce stalemates which are can potentially remove an outside occupational force, but it's much harder to remove a native ruling group) means that the power involved is the power of the will of self-selected induviudals and their power is based out of a barrell of a gun, not out of working class power from the bottom up.

So shit happens, yeah fuck cops - fuck the system and as for the induviduals, they should find another line of work if they don't want people they fuck over to occasionally push back. But we shouldn't elevate these things as benifical tactics or make a fetish of them. It's a dead end tactically if the goal is self-emancipation of the class by working class poeple.

[The Douche]

Debates about literally anything contemporary are better than debates about Kronstadt.

The debate about armed struggle and whether it's appropriate or not is such an old one that it almost gives me brain nausea reading about it on this site.

Anyway, I just came back to this thread to post a relevant quote that I like, from Paul Mattick:

This is not the "armed struggle" nor does it seek to be. These people aren't Maoists. They are not substituting their clandestine activities for the actions of the class, nor are they suggesting that communism can be established with a big enough pile of spent brass.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This is armed struggle. I'm not using it just in a Maoist sense, but in a general sense. In fact they themselves use the term "struggle" to describe their activities. These are the same folks responsible for burning down Wal-Mart (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mexican-wing-ccf-t163625/index.html), right? From their communique for that action:


Over the 45 days since forming this new organization for antagonistic struggle, we have lashed out at the system of domination, showing that struggle is possible because the system is vulnerable.

It does not take a huge stretch of the imagination to draw some pretty direct parallels between their rhetoric and strategies, and the rhetoric/strategies of groups in the past. That's why I said the debate is old. It is old.

[Art Vandelay]

This is armed struggle. I'm not using it just in a Maoist sense, but in a general sense. In fact they themselves use the term "struggle" to describe their activities. These are the same folks responsible for burning down Wal-Mart (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mexican-wing-ccf-t163625/index.html), right? From their communique for that action:



It does not take a huge stretch of the imagination to draw some pretty direct parallels between their rhetoric and strategies, and the rhetoric/strategies of groups in the past. That's why I said the debate is old. It is old.

I think that Mattick quote pretty much sums it up. I'm alienated as fuck and I can completely relate to the frame of mind of those who simply say fuck it, I'm ending the seemingly never ending monotony of daily life and wasting some pigs, or burning down a walmart. I get it. But when it comes down to it, their actions bring us no closer to revolution, do not help to raise class consciousness, and misdirect the good intentions of dedicated comrades.

[human strike]

In Italy during the '70s there were lots of armed feminist nuclei and groups who torched prostitution rackets, beat up pimps and shot rapists through the knees. There are accounts of them actively discouraging male comrades from solving these problems 'for them' in order to counter the male role-monopoly on the exercise of violence.

Are you able to provide more info on this or a link? Cheers.

[The Douche]

This is armed struggle. I'm not using it just in a Maoist sense, but in a general sense. In fact they themselves use the term "struggle" to describe their activities. These are the same folks responsible for burning down Wal-Mart (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mexican-wing-ccf-t163625/index.html), right? From their communique for that action:



It does not take a huge stretch of the imagination to draw some pretty direct parallels between their rhetoric and strategies, and the rhetoric/strategies of groups in the past. That's why I said the debate is old. It is old.

Antagonistic struggle does not equal "armed struggle". Not all struggles using arms even constitute the "armed struggle". The term carries an ideological weight.

[Ravachol]

Are you able to provide more info on this or a link? Cheers.

The first source that springs to mind is this chronology: http://libcom.org/history/armed-struggle-italy-1976-1978 but there's more out there on groups like Lotta Femminista,etc.

As a sidenote: there's a scene in the excellent movie 'Lavorare Con Lentezza' which portrays such an event.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Antagonistic struggle does not equal "armed struggle". Not all struggles using arms even constitute the "armed struggle". The term carries an ideological weight.

OK man, if you want to nit-pick my phraseology that's cool.

[The Douche]

OK man, if you want to nit-pick my phraseology that's cool.

Whatever bro, I'm just saying. "Armed struggle" is different from some anarchos blasting a cop or torching a wal-mart.

The armed struggle implies a conquest for power based around the use of arms, thats not what this communique suggests.


ETA: Were the pistoleros or the illegalists engaged in the armed struggle, in your opinion? Do you think their strategy compares to People's Will or the Russian nihilists?