Black Bloc

[The Feral Underclass]

Just a quick thread about this:

The resistance to the G8 was largely successful. Although the meeting wasn't closed down it was disrupted massively due to blockades and police resistance.

Half of the anarchists that came to the convergence space were pacifists or anarchists who adopted non-violent direct action in order to create the disturbances and mayhem that happened over the first few days of the organised G8 defiance. Then there were the other half who advocated violent direct action against it in order to create a valid revolutionary resistance.

The first thing that has to be understood is what is meant by anarchist non-violent direct action. Many anarchists, including the Samba and CIRCA advocated playing music and creating "fun" at the police lines. Some called for laying in the roads or locking on so that the police would have to remove you by force, but when they did, to not resist violently.

Insurrectionary anarchism however, adopts violence as both necessary to resist capitalism and the state but also to defy an authority or the tools used to enforce that authority which is oppressive, murderous and exploitative.

The repression by capitalism and the state happens on a daily basis towards working class and young people. The state adopts violence every day to enforce, maintain and develop its agenda and it has no qualms with doing so.

Many people seem to think that anti-capitalists events are just a symbol of little importance that should have no bearing on any "real" struggle that happens. To some extent this is true. Resisting the G8 is symbolic, but it is symbolic in showing what the state is, what capitalism will do to protect itself and what we as anarchists need to do in order to resist it.

Black Bloc are criticised on the left for being incoherent young teenagers who have no real conception of class struggle and who just like to confront the police. On the right they are criticised for being chaotic thugs. What is interesting is that none of these people seem to have anything to do with Black Bloc, nor take the time to understand what they are.

Black Bloc is generally made up of young people, but it being limited to teenagers is just absurd. That isn't the case at all. In fact many are actually "adults." Secondly, their message is to destroy capitalism and the state and create an anarchist society which is very specific. In order to achieve this, many believe that working class people should resist oppression and exploitation in their communities and in the work place, but they do not believe that struggle is limited to these arenas. Also confronting the police is a necessary aspect of struggle against their repression and whether that is through actually attacking them, creating as much chaos as possible to split their resources or simply just to taunt them is completely valid.

At events like the G8 it is a time where the elite of capitalism come together and where the state undertakes a huge operation to protect these murderers. It is at times like this that struggle against these things become more obvious. The resistance of the state and capitalism becomes far more militant. The opportunity is created where revolutionary violence as a tactic can be used to generate a culture of militantism.

Black Bloc and the insurrectionary anarchists represent the organisation of class struggle anarchists who accept that in situations like this, it is necessary to use violence. The police are there to protect what we want to destroy; therefore to resist them using violence is a natural conclusion. The police attempt to stop us, we fight them. They attempt to block us, we fight them. They attempt to repress or arrest us, we fight back. This is revolutionary struggle.

We are not just young thugs. We are an organisation of anarchists who accept that the violence of the state should and must, in order to create an atmosphere of militantism and to create genuine defiance to repression, be met by violence. If we resist within the parameters of their rules then we show that their system is legitimate, we give them the power. By resisting them through attack and violent confrontation we wrestle from them the legitimacy that they believe they have. They are our class enemies and fighting them will always be necessary.

Further to this, the Stirling G8 Network, on the behalf of all the anarchists involved in the resistance, worked hard within the local communities to talk to and debate the issues being raised. For those patronising materialists who believe that Black Bloc and the insurrectionary anarchists care nothing for those we claim to be fighting for, this is proof that we care about the image the bourgeois media create and we have attempted to counter it. In this instance, to much success.

If only we could find more solidarity within the revolutionary left movement at large, maybe the bourgeois media would not be able to paint us with lies? Until the left accepts that what Black Bloc and the insurrectionary anarchists do is a valid tool against state repression and accept that we are simply being honest about our shared objective; until we have support within the context of joining in confrontation with police or in education, the left will continue to remain a cesspool of reformism and class treachery.

[The Feral Underclass]

I would like a debate on their tactics.

[Clarksist]

I have nothing against their tactics, except that the confrontation of the police officers in public protesting just gives the police officers the easy road to removing everyone because its "violent".

As for the actual revolution, that is a different idea. Do you have any additional information on Black Bloc's defined agenda?

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 10 2005, 06:23 AM
At events like the G8 it is a time where the elite of capitalism come together and where the state undertakes a huge operation to protect these murderers. It is at times like this that struggle against these things become more obvious
No it doesn't. Damn few people understood what all the fuss in Seattle was about, for example. These meetings are just a convenient focus for bringing together a very thin but mobile layer of activists from far and wide. Later you construct ratonalizations for something which people did because they could.


. If we resist within the parameters of their rules then we show that their system is legitimate, we give them the power.

No, they get their power from guns and money and their legitimacy from "the consent of the governed" (or at least acceptance), expressed through the electoral system, etc. Our actions give them, or deprive them of, legitimacy and power only to the extent we affect those pillars.


By resisting them through attack and violent confrontation we wrestle from them the legitimacy that they believe they have.

No, in the modern world legitimacy is not taken by violence alone. (Though still "nothing succeds like success".) Maybe in parts of the ancient world or among cavemen it was possible to get legitimacy on the basis of "might makes right" but even then you actually had to have the might.

Never mind bourgeois democracy, even ancient Chinese philosophers and medeival European kings had more progressive concepts of the sources of legitimacy than you express here.

If anything, your "show of weakness" reinforces their legitimacy by showing their opponents lack both physical force and popular support.

And that's all, in TAT's long post, for an explanation of why this tactic is correct. There is nothing whatsoever examining the concrete situation and relationship of forces, which is the first step in any serious thinking about tactics.

Since I have to examine all the real questions from scratch anyway, I'll do a separate post for that.


For those patronising materialists who believe that Black Bloc and the insurrectionary anarchists care nothing for those we claim to be fighting for,

Who believes that? For my part, I'm fully willing to believe that like other liberals and reformists you "care" about the poor, downtrodden workers you are fighting for. Revolutionaries, however, recognize that the working class must liberate itself, and we fight as part of the working class, not for it. As the Manifesto explains, we are distinguished from other working-class fighters only by internationalism and a clearer perception of the whole course of the class struggle, not just the moment.


If only we could find more solidarity within the revolutionary left movement at large, maybe the bourgeois media would not be able to paint us with lies?

I'm not sure why you attribute this magical power over the bourgeois media to the "revolutionary left movement".

But maybe if you stopped trying to corral the unwilling into your deliberately provoked streetfights, and disrupting the rallies of others, you would sound less hypocritical in appealing for help from "the revolutionary left movement at large". Really, why not organize these rallies on your own, with those who knowingly and willingly show up for a battle with the cops, if you're so committed to freedom and anarchy?

In debate with a different audience, I'd emphasize the disproportionate response of the cops and their attack on the right to assemble and protest. But here, I see no reason to hold back on your role in helpfully providing them with the excuse to do so.

And if your ilk ever attempt to disrupt an action I care about, I owe you no more than I do any other bunch of attackers. Regardless of what uniform they wear or what flag they carry. And regardless of whether they are paid and conscious and unpaid and unconscious agent-provocateurs (the latter are actually more dangerous and destructive.) Only tactical considerations limit how to respond in defense of the action and our right to assemble.

[Severian]

OK. What is the basis of revolutionary tactics?

Only the mass action of the working class, together with allies from other layers of exploited people, can smash the capitalist state, take power, and start transforming society together with workers in other countries (aka building socialism and communism). The reason we haven't done it already, is because our class isn't sufficiently conscious of its own interests, and not sufficiently organized to defend them.

Anything that increases the consciousness and organization of the working class, and thereby brings us closer to being able to take power into our own hands, is good. Anything that does the opposite is bad.

What tactics do this, depend on the situation. But while no answer applies universally, some questions often do. How many people, especially workers, are likely to join this action? Will it help build confidence in our class and its potential power among participants? What will the effect be on others who witness or hear about the action - will they be attracted or repelled? Will it help draw previously apolitical layers of working people into future actions? Do the demands help clarify the interests of the class, or obscure and confuse them?

The goal is mass action, which is not a tactic but a strategy based on the realization that only the masses of working people can do the job.

Those who advocate confrontation on principle, typically don't worry about these things. They frequently organize actions which tend to alienate more people than they attract.

Typically, confrontationist tactics are not even calculated for their effect on our class. More frequently, they are aimed at having some effect on the enemy class. As TAT said in praise of the Black Bloc in his first post in the earlier thread on this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=37729&st=0), "They do not want to convince the workers of their arguments, there whole mission at this event was to confront and irritate the police."

Other confrontationists I've argued with explain their goal is to frighten the ruling class with the threat of social disruption - for example hoping to convince them to call of a war. Confrontationism, super-radical rhetoric, and window-smashing are basically attempts by frustrated liberals to appeal to the ruling class by scaring it with the spectre of "civil disorder" - or in other words, "Daddy, notice me!"

Which is why I described the whole thing as a "game" in the other thread.

Confrontationists typically appeal to those already radicalized, and perhaps jaded by attending repeated demonstrations without getting a quick capitulation from the powers that be.

The program, the demands, etc., are not viewed as central by confrontationsits; rather the tactic, the confrontation itself is central, not merely a means to advancing the program and demands. TAT hasn't described the program or demands of the Black Bloc or the protests at all in his posts in this thread. And very little in the other, except, ironically, to complain that pacifists dropped all (unspecified) political demands from a statement.

At times, confrontationist actions have explicitly liberal or otherwise procapitalist demands or programs. For one famous example: the holy grail of confrontationism, the Chicago 1968 Democratic Convention protests were intended by many of their organizers to help Eugene McCarthy's presidential campaign. For another, the Seattle anti-WTO protests had a basically nationalist and protectionist agenda - so much so that leading fascist Patrick Buchanan joined them - and AFAIK this was challenged little if at all by the confrontationist element of those protests.

[Donnie]

I personally think Black Bloc is a good idea; it confronts the bourgeoisie at protests and acts as a sort of direct revenge. There very good against police oppression at protests.

I've herd of two rumors at the Eco-Camp in Stirling.

This first rumor was that Black Bloc kicked the metropolitan police ass.
The second rumor was that Black Bloc was saved by a Child Bloc.

I've always fancied going on a Black Bloc, but from what stories I've herd there shit scary to go on.
At the G8 summit I was always in the wrong place and the wrong time when Black Bloc was getting something done.

But yes there tactics are short and good. I mean personally if we just protests within the law and do what we are told by the coppers we are going to get shit results.
If we challenge the authorities and the capitalist system we are going to get good results.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:41 AM
No it doesn't. Damn few people understood what all the fuss in Seattle was about, for example.
Well yes it does. Literature and activities nationally and locally focus on the G8 and why it is important to resist it. The Anarchist movement, along with the authoritarian left all contributed to the debate about the G8. Events like these focus energy and debate within the context of wider struggle against capitalism and the state.


meetings are just a convenient focus for bringing together a very thin but mobile layer of activists from far and wide.

That isn't true either.

There were about 3,000 anarchists in the anarchist convergence space alone, not to mention the massive CWI contingency. This isn't a "thin layer" it is a diverse and numerous amount of activists concentrated around an issue which is directly linked to an overall objective.


Later you construct ratonalizations for something which people did because they could.

This is just your speculative opinion.

It had nothing to do with going to resist the G8 because we could. The G8 meeting is a massive symbolic occurrence where the elite of the neo-liberal agenda come together to discuss how to protect and maintain capitalism. These events focus anti-capitalist politics because the links are obvious.



. If we resist within the parameters of their rules then we show that their system is legitimate, we give them the power.
No, they get their power from guns and money and their legitimacy from "the consent of the governed" (or at least acceptance), expressed through the electoral system, etc.

I don't see how this is separate to what I said.


Our actions give them, or deprive them of, legitimacy and power only to the extent we affect those pillars.

That isn't the case at all. The organisation and self-management of working class people within their communities is vastly more important and effective than working within bourgeois electoral politics, which only creates confusion and reinforces the systems legitimacy.

Working class people have affected more through direct action and demand than through consolidation and compromise.


No, in the modern world legitimacy is not taken by violence alone.

I never claimed that it did.


And that's all, in TAT's long post, for an explanation of why this tactic is correct. There is nothing whatsoever examining the concrete situation and relationship of forces, which is the first step in any serious thinking about tactics.

But that's all you do isn't it?

The situation is that working class people are bombarded with violence every day and the only way to challenge that is through modes of direct action; violent if necessary.


Revolutionaries, however, recognize that the working class must liberate itself, and we fight as part of the working class, not for it.

Many Black Bloc members are members of the working class. They aren't some separate entity that operates outside of them. They live in their communities.

They are challenging the state because they are a product of its violence. My point was that you reformists believe that we act selfishly and without regard for the "class struggle", when actually these actions are a conclusion of that very struggle, between working class and ruling class. The actions on the streets of Edinburgh where a direct response to ruling class oppression.


As the Manifesto explains, we are distinguished from other working-class fighters only by internationalism and a clearer perception of the whole course of the class struggle, not just the moment.

That doesn't make Black Bloc tactics any less valid than any other.


I'm not sure why you attribute this magical power over the bourgeois media to the "revolutionary left movement".

I'm not. What I'm saying is that the revolutionary left come out quickly to condemn Black Bloc and insurrectionary anarchism without taking the time to analyse it, in the effort to gain "popular" support for their agenda. They, you, latch on to a pre-defined bourgeois stereotype without affording the time to understand.

Having said that, the G8 Alternative did come out in support of the demonstrators at the Carnival for Full Enjoyment.


But maybe if you stopped trying to corral the unwilling into your deliberately provoked streetfights, and disrupting the rallies of others, you would sound less hypocritical in appealing for help from "the revolutionary left movement at large".

No one is attempting to corral anyone into doing anything. I mean you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The Carnival for Full Enjoyment was not the "rally of others" it was our rally as much as anyone else’s and our tactics are as legitimate as anyone else’s.

Further to that, it was Black Bloc that managed to defeat the police in order for the other 2,000 demonstrators to get out of the camp to start the blockades. It was the insurrectionary anarchists who charged the police lines to break them so others could attempt to disrupt the G8 meeting.

There may have been a sly pacifist elite that attempted to undermine and belittle the insurrectionary anarchists at the whole event, but without them there would have been no event at all.


Really, why not organize these rallies on your own, with those who knowingly and willingly show up for a battle with the cops, if you're so committed to freedom and anarchy?

If it's a demonstration that doesn't include anarchists maybe you have a point, but as the majority of events organised after the Make Poverty History demonstration, of which Black Bloc remained out of sight largely, were anarchist organised then why would we? People new full well that the insurrectionary anarchists were going to be there.


In debate with a different audience, I'd emphasize the disproportionate response of the cops and their attack on the right to assemble and protest. But here, I see no reason to hold back on your role in helpfully providing them with the excuse to do so.

Don't be so naive! They don't need a reason. They had already separated the march in two and had already ketteled and attacked protesters. The police don't need excuses, they do what they want, when they want and I witnessed first hand the police breaking the law on numerous occasions: Of course, they're the police!


And if your ilk ever attempt to disrupt an action I care about, I owe you no more than I do any other bunch of attackers.

Reformists are as much class enemies as the police, so if our "ilk" were anywhere near an action you were on I'd watch out ;)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 08:30 AM
The goal is mass action, which is not a tactic but a strategy based on the realization that only the masses of working people can do the job.


But that is patently not true. It's my point entirely. You have no idea what the insurrectionary anarchists do within the confines of their communities and countries. You simply assume that because a tactic of confrontation is adopted that automatically excludes any other. It's a lie.


Typically, confrontationist tactics are not even calculated for their effect on our class. More frequently, they are aimed at having some effect on the enemy class.

I am a worker. So are the vast majority of insurrectionary anarchists I know and met. We are apart of the class you're talking about. We aren't separate to our communities, we are our communities. You talk about "our" class, but we are "our" class.


As TAT said in praise of the Black Bloc in his first post in "They do not want to convince the workers of their arguments, there whole mission at this event was to confront and irritate the police."

That's true. But I was referring within the context of the G8. The state oppress' working class people daily and things like the G8 are an arena to adopt confrontational tactics as an ideological tactic in itself.

To confront and irritate the police at events like the G8 is working class people coming together and fighting the tools of their oppression within a set defined arena of resistance. This is a valid tactic.


Confrontationism, super-radical rhetoric, and window-smashing are basically attempts by frustrated liberals to appeal to the ruling class by scaring it with the spectre of "civil disorder" - or in other words, "Daddy, notice me!"

Once again, a patronising bourgeois stereotype which is completely and absolutely a falsification of the truth.

You see, it makes it easier to criticise insurrectionary anarchists or "confrontationists" as middle class liberal teenagers, angry with the world, because the idea that working class revolutionary adults resisting the state through violence is just to much to comprehend. We may actually threaten the agenda of left reformists and their bid for control.

Just imagine, working class people fighting back! :o


Confrontationists typically appeal to those already radicalized, and perhaps jaded by attending repeated demonstrations without getting a quick capitulation from the powers that be.

There may be some elements that are frustrated; maybe it is an overall feeling, but this isn't a premise for the tactics existence.

And to be honest, I think it is a perfectly valid opinion to be frustrated with demonstrations. They are pointless.


TAT hasn't described the program or demands of the Black Bloc or the protests at all in his posts in this thread.

The program is to be confrontational and have no set demands as an entity. Their sole purpose is to fight the tools of state repression.

[YKTMX]

Unlike other Marxists who blindly criticise the black bloc I have actually met with and spoken to many of them - in Genoa for instance, where a British contigent joined with the amazing Italian group.

I'd endorse what TAT said about many of them being committed working class radicals - Carlo Guiliani (though not specifically a member of the "black bloc") was a transport worker from a solid radical family, for instance.

I feel they have every right to respond to the violence of the state in any way they deem fit. They should not be criticised for being "violent", that is essentially a bourgeois pacifist position, not a socialist one. Violence is part of society, part of capitalism; a product of social relations.

HOWEVER, I have a few problems with them. TAT criticises the left of the revolutionary left for ostracising the "insurrectionary anarchists", however, I feel that he has to recognise that there is a strong current in these groups who actively seek ostracisation. They don't want to march, organise and join with others, who they see as being compromised by the state (or as TAT put it, rather ridicilously, "reformism").

Another problem with BB is something which TAT's original post demonstrates quite clearly - an obcession with confrontation with the police force. Let's get this straight, the British Police Force are an organ of the British state ergo an "enemy". But to imagine that the whole pantheon of revolutionary struggle comes down to a fight with them at a fence is absurd. The Police are just the "public face" of the state - they aren't the state itself. For instance, imagine if you can that we had gotten through all the gates at Auchterarder, does anyone really think we would have gotten anywhere near the leaders? No, we would probably have seen the Army, the SAS, god knows.


And lastly: violence at avowedly non-violent protests. For me, this can never be acceptable. Whatever the anarchists say, it alienates people. It is actually elitist because not everyone can take part. If the BB and others want to have a fight, fine, I'm sure the police would accomadate on any day they like. But, when they specifically choose mass protests that are broad and general to "provide cover" with violent direct action, I think that betrays something about the anarchist mindset.

[bunk]

In Genoa didn't some pascifists attack Black Blockers?

[Donnie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 02:54 PM
In Genoa didn't some pascifists attack Black Blockers?
I thought that was the battle of Seattle?

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 11 2005, 05:14 AM
Reformists are as much class enemies as the police, so if our "ilk" were anywhere near an action you were on I'd watch out ;)
That's the only new point in TAT's posts.

A declaration that those who disagree with him are "class enemies" who should be physically attacked.

Many confrontationists have carried out such attacks, of course: Maoists and LaRouchites, for example. (The LaRouchites were once an ultraleft group.)

But those people didn't claim to be anti-authoritarian. Apparently TAT's concept of freedom doesn't include the freedom to disagree with him.

[bunk]

When it is clear disrupting a summit is going to be an uphill battle would it not be better to have a demo in every city for the revolutionary leftists (nothing to do with this site). Far more action could be achieved this way, the police would have an extremely difficult operation to carry out; including also protecting the summit well in case of any of us turning up there. The money and effort spent in logistics to organise the movement to the summit could be focused on direct action or symbolic protests. The thing as a whole may not seem as symbolic as protesting right next to the summit but every local media would report their city and any major occupying or fighting would be reported on national media.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Marxists in Prauge have fought with black blocers.

[bur372]

So do we all agree on one thing the black bloc are defintly united agaisnt the bourgoise and anarchists who know about the theory ( have read about proudhorn etc). SOme of the members here seem to have met if not have been in black blocs can you onestly say the above is true.

does anyone have any video text or audio of interviews with the black bloc? I am sure there is a film called "anarchist youth" about this. the only statement by them i heard on the bbc and it sounded like these people were knowledable in the theory.

The media defintly sterotypes the protesters the number of times I have heard the term black bloc anarchist on the news. <_<

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 09:16 PM
That&#39;s the only new point in TAT&#39;s posts.
I can only move past repetition when you address the points instead of regurgitating the same old rubbish.


A declaration that those who disagree with him are "class enemies" who should be physically attacked.

Not even you&#39;re that stupid.

Now come on. I didn&#39;t say this at all. I said that reformists are class enemies. Do you disagree?

As for attacking them, I was being flippant and you know damn well that I was.


But those people didn&#39;t claim to be anti-authoritarian. Apparently TAT&#39;s concept of freedom doesn&#39;t include the freedom to disagree with him.

Nice try :rolleyes:

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2005, 05:07 AM
I said that reformists are class enemies. Do you disagree? As for attacking them, I was being flippant and you know damn well that I was.

What is this bullshit, suddenly pretending you were talking about someone else when you said reformists. After repeatedly saying "you reformists" and so forth.

You said, " Reformists are as much class enemies as the police, so if our "ilk" were anywhere near an action you were on I&#39;d watch out wink.gif"

Clearly that&#39;s a threat. Pathetic and harmless as an intenet threat against someone against the other side of the Atlantic is, it still says volumes about your political direction.

Then when you&#39;re called on it, you pretend you never said it. What a weasel you are.

(And no, actual reformists aren&#39;t "class enemies" either. They&#39;re part of the working class movement, and often the largest part. The Stalinists have given plenty of examples of the complete rottenness of trying to settle differences within the workers&#39; movement as if they were the same as the conflict with the ruling class. That approach typically leads to attacking the workers&#39; movement itself, not just one&#39;s rivals within it.)

[The Feral Underclass]

Reformists are class enemies, as much as the police, but the idea of attacking them/you was a joke. hence the winking smiley.

[Severian]

Ah. I see. It&#39;s OK to make any fucked-up statement, and not get called on it, as long as you put in an emoticon afterwards.

Presumably we should change the board policy on racist, etc., statements to reflect this. &#39;Cause they often say, "I was just joking", too.

No. Jokes are funny. Or at least they try to be. This is just you making a fucked up statement and trying to shield yourself from response, because you&#39;re a weasel who can&#39;t advocate it openly, you&#39;ve gotta wink and nod.

(To avoid misunderstanding, I&#39;m not saying TAT&#39;s statement is comparable to racist statements or that there should be administrative action. He&#39;s got a right to advocate that type of fucked-up action. And I&#39;ve got a right to call him on it.)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 12:24 PM
He&#39;s got a right to advocate that type of fucked-up action.
But I don&#39;t think that reformists should be attacked the same way as the Police. I was being flippant.

Calm down please.

[Donnie]

does anyone have any video text or audio of interviews with the black bloc?
I doubt Black Bloc would give an interview when there in a Black Bloc; the only time they will stop is to take a breath. Personally you don&#39;t want to be hanging around talking to the media while you have just been in a Black Bloc because the police will be after you?

You seem to be portraying as if Black Bloc is an organization, its tactic and comes together spontaneously at summits and events. I doubt anyone will want other people knowing if they have been in Black Bloc especially the media.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Alot of people dont understand that black blocing is just a tactic not an org.

[Holocaustpulp]

The problem (in my opinion) is precisely the fact that the black bloc has no set organization - one hears of their presence at protests and political events, and other things of the like, yet one can&#39;t rely on a spontaneous movement in itself to create communism. The problem is not just of the bourgeois media, but of the whole concept of anarchy. How is the worker to rely on an immediate revolution? How is the worker to know of revolutionary thought? How is he to know of protests, or events, of the truth underneath bourgeois media? These are the merits of organization.

Another problem is the bourgeois media. Nonetheless, the image of the black bloc is typically infamous, and this indeed leaks into the working class. Without any organizationed wide-spread efforts, anarchists will perhaps win some over to the movement towards communism, yet ultimately fail because of their standstill tactics.

Perhaps the bloc can elude police; however, they will never overthrow them.

- HP

[enigma2517]

yet one can&#39;t rely on a spontaneous movement in itself to create communism

You&#39;re probably right, our leader should plan it all out and send out the command world wide to begin the insurrection.

Now, lets look at events such as May of &#39;68.


When the Sorbonne reopened, students occupied it and declared it an autonomous "people&#39;s university". Approximately 400 popular "action committees" were set up in Paris and elsewhere in the weeks that followed to take up grievances against the government.

In the following days workers began occupying factories, starting with a sit-down strike at the Sud Aviation plant near the city of Nantes on May 14, then another strike at a Renault parts plant near Rouen, which spread to the Renault manufacturing complexes at Flins in the Seine Valley and the Paris suburb of Boulogne-Billancourt. By May 16 workers had occupied roughly fifty factories and by May 17 200,000 were on strike. That figure snowballed to two million workers on strike the following day and then ten million, or roughly two-thirds of the French workforce, on strike the following week.

Pay close attention to the word "snowballed", I find that an interesting choice indeed because it seems to accurately describe what would happen with an libertarian left movement under the proper material conditions.

Who knows best when workers are pissed off and ready to fight for a change? Why....workers maybe? Of course they might try to relay this to the party but alas, groups like the French Communist Party actually tried to contain this insurrection. Why? Because they felt that the recent events could garner them more votes. Hey, its not a revolutionary movement if we&#39;re not in charge&#33;

Man, talk about being retroactive. Here&#39;s a funny little graffiti quote from that time period

Veuillez laisser le Parti communiste aussi net en en sortant que vous voudriez le trouver en y entrant.

Please leave the Communist Party as clean on leaving it as you would like to find it on entering.


How is the worker to rely on an immediate revolution?

Ever heard of a surprise attack? Anything less than immediate is deadly. Can the worker rely on that?


How is the worker to know of revolutionary thought?

Most anarchist groups undertake numerous direct actions that creatively inform and inspire those around them. Ideas such as Food Not Bombs are the best promoters of idealogly, not peaceful protests or parlimentary action. I think that even though the Black Panthers were a Marxist-Leninist group they were immensely successful because of their Free Breakfast program. Stuff like that works.

Now black bloc is not claiming to build a communist society, and black bloc is not the only thing anarchism as a movement consists of. Its used to instigate and agitate workers. Ultimately, radicalized unions or just new workers organizations are the ones that will be the foundation. Black bloc is only the beginning.

[Holocaustpulp]

enigma: "Who knows best when workers are pissed off and ready to fight for a change? Why....workers maybe? Of course they might try to relay this to the party but alas, groups like the French Communist Party actually tried to contain this insurrection. Why? Because they felt that the recent events could garner them more votes. Hey, its not a revolutionary movement if we&#39;re not in charge&#33;"

First of all I am not suggesting that centralized party members are at all more pivotal than the worker&#39;s themselves; in fact, such people carry out action as a conveyance of mutual trust and permission by supportive workers. Without the workers&#39; approval, socialist and communist ideals are betrayed. This explanation leads to my second point, that any party member wishing to stifle the movement, i.e., impose their will upon that of the general workers, is a regressive element in the movement. Leninism does not represent such regress in the revolution for it promotes worker&#39;s power full-heartedly. Centralization is for practical purposes, not dictatorial ones.

" &#39;How is the worker to rely on an immediate revolution?&#39; [my quote] Ever heard of a surprise attack? Anything less than immediate is deadly. Can the worker rely on that?"

"Surprise attack" does not anticipate several key factors in the revolutionary movement: a.Quick and decisive action b.Better organized action c.A post-revolutionary plan of organization, i.e. to more efficiently help the workers assemble and represent themselves d.Defense. So my answer is no, the worker cannot apply on a "surprise attack."

I come to this conclusion for several reasons. One of them is itself the French insurrection of May 1968. While indeed the mass movement did display the utter power of the working class, the revolution died in part because of the lack of direction that the masses possessed - that being, if indeed the insurrection would have been coordinated better, it would have earned the title of a revolution and overcome all other obstacles. As Iain Gunn says on the topic (article from Marxist.com), "All that was needed was leadership." This is why I am against relying on the spontaneous movement, yet not against accepting it once it occurs (yet hoping a party&#39;s efforts lead to such conditions if they occurred).

Another example is the failure of autonomous groups to make a wide-scale impact on contemporary circumstance by failing to better coordinate. Yet another example is the slowing down of the movement if there is no substantial party to make itself known to the workers, the peasants, and even the petty- and bourgeois masses, and to promote its ideals (i.e., the ideals of the people) among all class strata.

"Most anarchist groups undertake numerous direct actions that creatively inform and inspire those around them. Ideas such as Food Not Bombs are the best promoters of idealogly, not peaceful protests or parlimentary action. I think that even though the Black Panthers were a Marxist-Leninist group they were immensely successful because of their Free Breakfast program. Stuff like that works."

Did I at all implicate that I was against such programs ar Free Breakfast and Food Not Bombs? These are great ideas, and are better coordinated by a wide and organized group such as the Black Panthers, not localized and thus only effective in the local area (a nation-wide effort is much more favorable for all purposes).

"Now black bloc is not claiming to build a communist society, and black bloc is not the only thing anarchism as a movement consists of. Its used to instigate and agitate workers. Ultimately, radicalized unions or just new workers organizations are the ones that will be the foundation. Black bloc is only the beginning."

I did not mean in any way - if you interpreted such - that the Black Bloc is the only substance of the anarchist movement; rather, it was the main topic at hand in this thread. Black Bloc is the beginning in that it marks rudimentary tactics - what is needed are unions to confront the legal hurdles and a revolutionary organization (workers organization) to create the foundation for a revolutionary society. The wide-spread strike in France was boiling over many years - a revolutionary party can easily remedy the time gap and make the revolution much more efficient.

- Holocaustpulp

[Donnie]

The problem (in my opinion) is precisely the fact that the black bloc has no set organization - one hears of their presence at protests and political events, and other things of the like, yet one can&#39;t rely on a spontaneous movement in itself to create communism. The problem is not just of the bourgeois media, but of the whole concept of anarchy. How is the worker to rely on an immediate revolution? How is the worker to know of revolutionary thought? How is he to know of protests, or events, of the truth underneath bourgeois media? These are the merits of organization.
People in Black Bloc know of revolutionary thought because most of them will be from different or same organization for example one anarchist maybe be a member of the Solidarity Federation and when he goes up to the summit he may want to get involved in a Black Bloc, so people in Black Bloc do know revolutionary thought.


Another problem is the bourgeois media. Nonetheless, the image of the black bloc is typically infamous, and this indeed leaks into the working class. Without any organizationed wide-spread efforts, anarchists will perhaps win some over to the movement towards communism, yet ultimately fail because of their standstill tactics.
As I said before the Black Bloc only comes together at summits and events. Most of the time anarchist&#39;s will get working class people to join anarchist organization not Black Blocs. If our class does get involved within an anarchist organization they may want to start a black bloc at an event or summit.


Perhaps the bloc can elude police; however, they will never overthrow them.
The Black Bloc isn&#39;t there to overthrow the police or the capitalist system or to start a revolution, it is there to entice antagonisms between them and the police. The Black Bloc is just a form of revenge on the state at an event.
When the revolution does come, anarchist&#39;s like my self will overthrow the state and capitalism within our revolutionary organization not a Black Bloc.

[Holocaustpulp]

Donnie: thanks for the clarification. I&#39;m sorry I assumed the Black Bloc was its own autonomous group.

- HP

[rebelworker]

I think the black bloc tactic has been over used at summits, it only really makes sence when there is some stratigic value in confontational tactics.

The Best use of the blac block i have seen is in confronting facists at their rallys.
This is infact where the Idea originates, the autonomists used it in germany for this purpose and also in large confrontations to defend squated quarters of cities.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 08:27 AM
I think the black bloc tactic has been over used at summits, it only really makes sence when there is some stratigic value in confontational tactics.

The Best use of the blac block i have seen is in confronting facists at their rallys.
This is infact where the Idea originates, the autonomists used it in germany for this purpose and also in large confrontations to defend squated quarters of cities.
I read a NEFAC response to a WSM article about Black Bloc tactics and I thought it was absolutely spot on.

Has the Black Bloc tactic reached the end of its usefulness? (http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=767)

[Donnie]

This is a good site for basically explaining everything you need to know about Black Bloc. This was where I first read about the Black Bloc, it’s very good.
Black Bloc for dummies (http://www.infoshop.org/blackbloc.html)

[novemba]

RebelWorker - Check your PM folder.