Rostock g8 demonstrations

[Ele'ill]

What are your thoughts on these upcoming events and the current footage being shown on CNN as well as the other media networks as the pre-protests kick off.

I think CNN stayed fairly neutral even while showing the violent clashes between the police and demonstrators. This made me happy. Then they explained that 146 police officers were injured. It would be so neat if nobody got hurt and everyone that was arrested were set free after an hour or so.


Seeing the waves of red and black, masks and rock throwing brought back memories of N30. I enjoyed Seattle. I got excited while watching it and I wanted to be a part of it. To vent my frustrations against a system. I am glad that there are explosive protests and likewise, peaceful people there as well.

I didn't like seeing the vandalism, blatant attacks on the police (I don't care if they're an extension of the state you're not there to attack them) and even the extreme rock tossing competitions turned me off slightly.


At this point i'm simply not sure, I hope nobody is seriously injured, I hope nobody gets jailed for extended periods of time and I hope that this demonstration does something positive for those opposed to the system.

[An archist]

From what I've heard, during the whole march the police were shoving and pushing the protesters. At first they reacted peacefully (surrounding the police with their hands in the air)
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d1/brakke123/45025.jpg

Then at the end of the protest, the black bloc came in action.

[Ele'ill]

Well when any large group of people that hate you gets you surrounded, regardless of what they're doing, the best choice is often to either run or shove first. The police can't stand by while people attempt to disrupt a meeting or business event that the police are there to protect so running isn't an option for them.

[Comrade J]

So when the police began shoving protestors, they should have turned and run? How exactly do you propose the front rows of protestors run? The police deserved everything they got, it's their own fault for putting themselves in that position. Also, the BBC showed a few injured protestors with head injuries,

I love watching the riots on TV, I just wish I was there.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Here is an image for you black bloc anarchists courtesy of the BBC

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43001000/jpg/_43001193_ap_blackbook220.jpg

[Fawkes]

It would be so neat if nobody got hurt
It would be nice if that was possible, but it's not.


Then they explained that 146 police officers were injured.
Did they mention protesters' injuries?


The police can't stand by while people attempt to disrupt a meeting or business event that the police are there to protect so running isn't an option for them.
And I fully support those people beating the shit out of the police officers so as to enable them to further delay or halt a meeting in which eight illegitimate "leaders" make decisions affecting billions of peoples' lives with no input from those people whatsoever.

[An archist]

can you imagine?
A 2000 strong black-bloc :ph34r:

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 03, 2007 01:58 pm
can you imagine?
A 2000 strong black-bloc :ph34r:
Against 30.000 police men?

[Patchd]

Lol, I was watching BBC news yesterday, and they had some guy in talking about the clashes.
He was talking about the Anarchists, and he said something along the lines of "the ironic thing is, the very people these Anarchists are demonising are the ones who they [b]need (!!!) to change things" :lol:

In addition to that, may I also say that it isn't the protestors' job not to provoke the police into acting in a brutal way, it is the pigs' job not to act in such a brutal way if provoked.

[Ele'ill]

A 2000 strong black-bloc

Yeah, wow. That would be a lot of empty middle school classrooms. :D





Lol, I was watching BBC news yesterday, and they had some guy in talking about the clashes.
He was talking about the Anarchists, and he said something along the lines of "the ironic thing is, the very people these Anarchists are demonising [bourgeoisie] are the ones who they need (!!!) to change things" laugh.gif

I agree in a way that the radical fringes need to find common ground with more stable sub groups within a movement. NOT the leaders of the current world.



In addition to that, may I also say that it isn't the protestors' job not to provoke the police into acting in a brutal way, it is the pigs' job not to act in such a brutal way if provoked.

Thats like saying 'it's not my job to not walk up and punch someone in the face'. Actually it's 'the pigs' job to stop people from throwing cobble stones and acting in a way that endangers life. Yes the police get out of hand and yes a handful of demonstrators also gets out of hand. The difference is that the police are essentially paid to keep control.

Also keep in mind that your military and police forces are part of the proletariat.

[luxemburg89]

Also keep in mind that your military and police forces are part of the proletariat.

Well that's partly true. I am going to take the case of the British Army if that's ok?

In the British Army many high-ranking officers are appointed due to the fact they have a high-status in society. That is, they effectively buy their way to the top of the army - this is not the case for all, but most of the high-rakning Army officials. It is also the case that traditionally the sons (daughters are here excluded by the sexist nature of the aristocracy) of rich families can join the Army - as their private education has done little for them (because state education is far more effective and produces better students - and better people lol); the rich can therefore either buy their way to the top, or find a job they don't need to be qualified for. Now this is where you point comes in: Some people are merely not best at academic studies, and therefore do not get good qualifications, the army is, as a result, an option for an income without high qualifications (these academic qualifications by no means suggest that one person is smarter than another, just talented in a different way - i.e. A footballer and a teacher are equally intelligent just in different ways).
However our critique of the Army is generally based on this: Those who go to fight, on the ground level, those who fall on the field are normally the proletariat; while the rich generals have bought their safety and do no work yet receive the credit. (Look up Byron's 'Don Juan' for ellaboration on this). This is a reflection of all that is wrong in society, the bourgeoisie become richer off the back of the Proletariats' hard work; The General becomes more 'glorified' - for want of a better phrase - at the expense of the Privates' deaths.

The Army is, in this case of Britain, only to an extent part of the proletariat. The Army also cease to be proletarians when a war (such as the Falklands' war) is about territory as it becomes nationalistic struggle, rather than class struggle; and also when they seek to join the Army or the police force to defend the interests of the crown. That is when they are, perhaps unwittingly and as a product of societal indoctrination, in fact defending the old system of Feudalism.

Lux

[Ele'ill]

Some people are merely not best at academic studies, and therefore do not get good qualifications, the army is, as a result, an option for an income without high qualifications (these academic qualifications by no means suggest that one person is smarter than another, just talented in a different way - i.e. A footballer and a teacher are equally intelligent just in different ways).


I cannot comment about the British military however I can say from experience, to a degree anyway, that the United States military is filled with people that come from low income homes. Rather than peddling drugs they enlist and become very proud of doing so. From being around these men and women I sort of gathered that underneath the facade of being proud and pro military they were simply ferociously embracing one of the few things that they had successfully accomplished in their life.



This is a reflection of all that is wrong in society, the bourgeoisie become richer off the back of the Proletariats' hard work; The General becomes more 'glorified' - for want of a better phrase - at the expense of the Privates' deaths.


Generals in the United States military get their rank through experience, qualifications and of course a little ass kissing. I do believe that they become disassociated from their roots as a grunt, as is portrayed in almost every war movie ever created. The Generals or high ranking officials to grunt ratio is in favor of the grunts by a large margin.

I'd also like to point out that American high ranking military officials still don't make THAT much money. They make very little actually.


That is when they are, perhaps unwittingly and as a product of societal indoctrination, in fact defending the old system of Feudalism.

They are no different than the general worker at any retail store, Union worker, skilled tradesman, teacher or doctor that works in and under a capitalist government.

Most doctors refuse to accept natural medicine practices (big pharma.), retail that buys products that are not fair trade or that have been made in sweatshops, teachers that teach the 'common truth' which is a half-truth at best and leftist union workers that work at say, a port, bringing in products from all over the world. These products and methods and EVERYTHING is generally in support of capitalism and globalization.

Many of the people that the left hates and is willing to throw cobblestones at are the proletariat. A handful of 17-25 year olds are not going to change the world. It will simply require everyone to be on the same page. To do this, I believe that radical fringe groups need to settle down.

[Patchd]

Thats like saying 'it's not my job to not walk up and punch someone in the face'. Actually it's 'the pigs' job to stop people from throwing cobble stones and acting in a way that endangers life. Yes the police get out of hand and yes a handful of demonstrators also gets out of hand. The difference is that the police are essentially paid to keep control.

The police are bound by "rules" which they supposedly must follow, although we all know thats all bullcrap anyway. Therefore, despite what some protestors are doing, it is the coppers' job not to go over the top while still attempt to do what they are paid to do.

Still, doesn't make what they do right.


Also keep in mind that your military and police forces are part of the proletariat.

Hehe, no, they've crossed class boundaries to serve in the interests of the middle classes against the working class. They fight against class struggle, they protect private property, they are institutionally racist. The pigs are no longer part of the working class, and I have no sympathy for a dead one.

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:18 pm
Generals in the United States military get their rank through experience, qualifications and of course a little ass kissing. I do believe that they become disassociated from their roots as a grunt, as is portrayed in almost every war movie ever created. The Generals or high ranking officials to grunt ratio is in favor of the grunts by a large margin.
No, generals don't start off as grunts, they go to a military academy and usually (if not allways) come from upper-class families.
The grunts (and ground police forces) usually come from working-class families, but they are trained to obey and are usually right-wing inclined (maybe not in the military)
When they fight against left wing protester, they clearly choose the side of the rulers, against their own class.

[Janus]

I do believe that they become disassociated from their roots as a grunt, as is portrayed in almost every war movie ever created. The Generals or high ranking officials to grunt ratio is in favor of the grunts by a large margin.
No, all generals started out as officers.


They make very little actually.
The top ranked generals make over $100,000, that's "very little"?

[listener]

the violent people, I don't call them protesters, they are only out to have their 'fights', harmed the peaceful demonstration. Nobody talks about the peaceful protesters.
I don't believe in violence. I have no respect for people who just come there to injure people. They are not better than those they allegedly *hate*.

[bezdomni]

Also keep in mind that your military and police forces are part of the proletariat.

No, they aren't.

[Ele'ill]

In addition to that, may I also say that it isn't the protestors' job not to provoke the police into acting in a brutal way, it is the pigs' job not to act in such a brutal way if provoked.

Original comment ^

I still believe that this way of thinking is silly. It's essentially saying 'the protesters are there to riot and break shit so why are the police getting involved(?) :D
The police are there, if you throw a brick at them or something they're protecting, they will react. The police freaking out on the entire demonstrating body because of what a few people are doing is the same as the 'black bloc' freaking out on the entire mass of police because of what a few of the police did. (Starting to tear gas etc). Are they there to fight the police or demonstrate against a larger picture.



The police are bound by "rules" which they supposedly must follow, although we all know thats all bullcrap anyway. Therefore, despite what some protestors are doing, it is the coppers' job not to go over the top while still attempt to do what they are paid to do.

A 2,000 strong group of people that believe in violence and are at the front of a demonstration not only discredit those that believe in peace but will get violence in return. We know the media is controlling, we know that 90% of the population won't care if the 'black bloc' was attacked first because it's NEVER shown on the news this way. Solution, change your tactics already and stop whining about the police. He who swallows the most marbles as a child looses.


Hehe, no, they've crossed class boundaries to serve in the interests of the middle classes against the working class. They fight against class struggle, they protect private property, they are institutionally racist.

Do you pay taxes? Are there racists among the working class? Doesn't the working class serve the middle class? What do you do for a living that is so much cleaner than a police officer?


The pigs are no longer part of the working class, and I have no sympathy for a dead one

They are the working class. Police dont' make that much money, neither do regular enlisted and officers and the work put in to make it to a high enough pay grade to be considered middle class they deserve it.


When they fight against left wing protester, they clearly choose the side of the rulers, against their own class.


I would bet my next pay check that a high percentage of those 'left wing' demonstrators are economic, lifestyle, hypocrites.


No, all generals started out as officers.

Nobody starts out as an officer, they go through basic training as a 'grunt' and if they have the drive/determination and if its what they want to do then they go to OCS. There is no such thing as a 'drop in officer' and this even applies to those coming out of ROTC to become officers.



The top ranked generals make over $100,000, that's "very little"?

And how many of them are there? In comparison to the grunts?




*I just reread my post here that at this time has no replies and feel it's a bit too hostile or strong for what I actually had intended. I'm leaving it unedited with this addition although I'll add that I'm usually not 100% set on my own ideas and I am willing to discuss issues further. All of my blanketish statements are presented with the intention of discussing more in depth later on.

[Janus]

Nobody starts out as an officer
That's the whole point of military academies and various other commissioning programs which is what most generals go through.


And how many of them are there? In comparison to the grunts?
Of course there are less.

[Axel1917]

There were some people engaging in reactionary actions, such as rioting and individual fighting with the police, and as history has shown, these actions can only play into the hands of the bourgeoisie, giving them all the excuses they need to crack down. The police were also trying to provoke things as well.

The movement needs to be protected against rioters and thugs in the future, regardless of where they come from. Stewarding is very important, and large left groups and unions should take the initiative. Use of alcohol and drugs should be banned during the demos, and individual rioters and provocateurs should be removed as well. The unions that were present should have been the organizers of the demo, and the working class should have done more to "stamp its image" on the movement.

A collective mass action is needed. "Individual heroes" have done nothing but damage the movement.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected]une 02, 2007 11:16 pm
Here is an image for you black bloc anarchists courtesy of the BBC

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43001000/jpg/_43001193_ap_blackbook220.jpg
theres a rly cute girl hidden in that pic :wub:


for the protest, the police was not only provokating for themselves, they had undercover agents within the black block which attempted to escalate the situation. each and every injured police officer deserved what they got.

i am not part of the black block obviously, but i appreciate them being with me. why? they dont start attacking us, its the police who does that. the black block is actually one of the few groups capable of keeping the police at distance, if only for some time. they were very disciplined in the blockades (even peacefull! :rolleyes: )) especiall when compared to a mass of people who would run away the second they police wants them to. distancing from them to keep the capitalist press on our side is nothing but sectarian bullshit. the police will crack down on us no matter what, they have shown that in heiligendamm often enough. they beat up hippies, clowns, peacefull blockades, lawyers, journalists, they dont need a reason for that, other than defending this system with all they have. even if the capitalist press would attack the police, what would that help? its not like they would start supporting revolutionary struggle, they would just push for some reformist bullshit solution that leads to nothing.

also the black block does not do what the police want like some "leftists" suggest in starting violence. the police actually wants to split the movement in "good protestors" who dont directly endanger the police or the system and "bad protestors" who do. anyone who joins in that discussion attacking the black block play into the hands of the ruling class.how can a rev. leftist join in the criminalisation of militant action if he sees the need for a violent revolution? if we let the black block be divided from the left now, how can a red militant action gain support in the future?

we need to convince the workers on a basic level to support us despite militant actions. that does actually work, i talked to many people of the local population and they were sympatising with our cause alot. the local peasants even supported our blockades though we marched through their fields, because they knew the police didnt let us march on the roads.

"die rote front und die schwarze front, SIND WIR"
(the red front and the black front is us)

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:54 am
There were some people engaging in reactionary actions, such as rioting and individual fighting with the police, and as history has shown, these actions can only play into the hands of the bourgeoisie, giving them all the excuses they need to crack down. The police were also trying to provoke things as well.

The movement needs to be protected against rioters and thugs in the future, regardless of where they come from. Stewarding is very important, and large left groups and unions should take the initiative. Use of alcohol and drugs should be banned during the demos, and individual rioters and provocateurs should be removed as well. The unions that were present should have been the organizers of the demo, and the working class should have done more to "stamp its image" on the movement.

A collective mass action is needed. "Individual heroes" have done nothing but damage the movement.
Were you even there? You have no idea what you're babbling about, mate. The riots were started by the police, and even before that, they were provoking. I was rather far in the back, in the DKP/SDAJ bloc, but even there, the police staged provocations, like having helicopters hovering over the protest at low altitude, or demanding that we clear the sidewalk so they could march past us to show off the size of their sticks(of two different kinds ;)) and look for a pretext to charge us and arrest people.

I wasn't there for the riots, but the video evidence speaks for itself:

http://de.indymedia.org/2007/06/180758.shtml

Plainclothes cops tried to forcibly arrest someone who had masked up. They were helped by riot cops, who were soon surrounded by activists, raising their hands to show their non-violence. The cops started pushing and shoving, and attempted to break out of the pocket. That's how the riots started initially.

I'm not altogether sure of what happened after that. At some point, 3 cars burned(this was constantly shown in the media, to bring back memories of Paris 2005). Later on, the police sent water cannons, they performed baton charges and used teargas, attacking the crowd that was watching the closing speeches. Here is a video of the indiscriminate police violence against the crowds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa0WJ41lU6g

I am sure that there were some elements among the protesters who deliberately sought out violence. However, these did not start the riots. Also, as RaiseYourVoice said, they are dependable allies when the shit hits the fan. I would rather have a thousands-man strong violent black bloc on my side, than thousands of people who would not want to help in order to avoid "individual fighting".

I suggest that you do not fall for strategy of police and media to divide the movement. That's the last thing we need at the moment.

Solidarity with all victims of police brutality!

Stoppt die Kriminalisiering der G8 Proteste!

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)The movement needs to be protected against rioters and thugs in the future, regardless of where they come from.[/b]

So, basically, your position is that all confrontational elements should be banned from "the movement"? As you put it, "individual rioters and provocateurs should be removed".

There are a few things wrong with this position. Primary among them, is a complete misunderstanding of the black blocs function. But, in addition to that, you also seem to be promoting completely passive, and ineffective, tactics -- tactics that leave protesters defenceless and vulnerable.

Which will never lead to militancy.

But, before I discuss that, I'll just outline why you're misunderstanding the black blocs function. To start with, with main aim of the black bloc is to engage with the Police -- which is something anyone with any knowledge of black blocs will know.

But, whilst, undoubtedly, there are probably some elements within the black bloc "movement" -- probably not the best term, but it's the best term I could think of -- that do it just because there's a chance of a riot, that's not what the black bloc is all about.

Yes, as I said, their function is to engage the Police -- but they do this because, by doing this, the Police are unable to confront the rest of the protest.

Which makes the black bloc, in affect, particularly on larger protests, the protests protection. They're the people who'll stop everyone else from getting a Police baton across the head; they're the people who'll stop the Police from just rounding up and arresting hundreds of protesters.

In effect, they help to ensure that the protest takes place.

That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate criticisms of the black bloc. Particularly with regards their role in smaller protests, and protests where confrontation needs to be avoided. But, anti-G8 protests are neither of these -- they're not small, and confrontation is expected.

So, in that regard, the black bloc shouldn't be excluded from the protest -- in fact, their presence is needed.

Moving on, and on the subject of passivity, non-confrontational tactics will never bring militancy. Nor will they ever lead to success -- and history has shown that. Just look at the Poll Tax riots, the Miners Strike, the Civil Rights Movement, the fight for the 8 hour workday, etc., etc.

Confrontation occurred in all of those movements, and in some cases, it was winning these confrontations that led to victory. The Poll Tax riots certainly didn't "play into the hands of the bourgeoisie", far from it.

And no doubt contrary to the gospel of Grant and Woods, it was not the political declarations of the parties involved that stopped the Poll Tax from being introduced. Or the peaceful demonstrations compromising a handful of leftists and a few banners. It was the working class taking on the state, and winning.

Which tells us, quite clearly, what is required for victory.


Axel1917
Use of alcohol and drugs should be banned during the demos...

Not that I'd disagree with this position, but I'd love to hear your reasoning behind this position. Because, I'd wager that it doesn't stem from a pragmatic, materialist standpoint -- but your moral objections to alcohol and drug use.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Dick Dastardly+June 10, 2007 04:01 pm--> (Dick Dastardly @ June 10, 2007 04:01 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2007 04:54 am
There were some people engaging in reactionary actions, such as rioting and individual fighting with the police, and as history has shown, these actions can only play into the hands of the bourgeoisie, giving them all the excuses they need to crack down. The police were also trying to provoke things as well.

The movement needs to be protected against rioters and thugs in the future, regardless of where they come from. Stewarding is very important, and large left groups and unions should take the initiative. Use of alcohol and drugs should be banned during the demos, and individual rioters and provocateurs should be removed as well. The unions that were present should have been the organizers of the demo, and the working class should have done more to "stamp its image" on the movement.

A collective mass action is needed. "Individual heroes" have done nothing but damage the movement.
Were you even there? You have no idea what you're babbling about, mate. The riots were started by the police, and even before that, they were provoking. I was rather far in the back, in the DKP/SDAJ bloc, but even there, the police staged provocations, like having helicopters hovering over the protest at low altitude, or demanding that we clear the sidewalk so they could march past us to show off the size of their sticks(of two different kinds ;)) and look for a pretext to charge us and arrest people.

I wasn't there for the riots, but the video evidence speaks for itself:

http://de.indymedia.org/2007/06/180758.shtml

Plainclothes cops tried to forcibly arrest someone who had masked up. They were helped by riot cops, who were soon surrounded by activists, raising their hands to show their non-violence. The cops started pushing and shoving, and attempted to break out of the pocket. That's how the riots started initially.

I'm not altogether sure of what happened after that. At some point, 3 cars burned(this was constantly shown in the media, to bring back memories of Paris 2005). Later on, the police sent water cannons, they performed baton charges and used teargas, attacking the crowd that was watching the closing speeches. Here is a video of the indiscriminate police violence against the crowds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa0WJ41lU6g

I am sure that there were some elements among the protesters who deliberately sought out violence. However, these did not start the riots. Also, as RaiseYourVoice said, they are dependable allies when the shit hits the fan. I would rather have a thousands-man strong violent black bloc on my side, than thousands of people who would not want to help in order to avoid "individual fighting".

I suggest that you do not fall for strategy of police and media to divide the movement. That's the last thing we need at the moment.

Solidarity with all victims of police brutality!

Stoppt die Kriminalisiering der G8 Proteste! [/b]
I have read a report from a Marxist that was there. It is true that the police were indeed also stirring up problems, but the fact is, and has always been, that hooligan and individual attacks on the police will always play into the hands of the bourgeoisie. The police aren't always the only ones that cause trouble. Only collective working class action can guarantee the way forward. Punkie-hippie nonsense is a stain on the movement.


So, basically, your position is that all confrontational elements should be banned from "the movement"? As you put it, "individual rioters and provocateurs should be removed".

There are a few things wrong with this position. Primary among them, is a complete misunderstanding of the black blocs function. But, in addition to that, you also seem to be promoting completely passive, and ineffective, tactics -- tactics that leave protesters defenceless and vulnerable.

Mass collective action has proven to be successful (such as the Spanish Students Union strike in...1986 or 1987...cant' remember the year.), the Bolshevik Revolution, general strikes, etc. Individual fighting and hooligan tactics have never been as such.


Which will never lead to militancy.

Bolshevik ways have been the most successful, hence the Bourgeoisie trying to suppress them, distort, them, etc. to scare people away from them.


But, before I discuss that, I'll just outline why you're misunderstanding the black blocs function. To start with, with main aim of the black bloc is to engage with the Police -- which is something anyone with any knowledge of black blocs will know.

But, whilst, undoubtedly, there are probably some elements within the black bloc "movement" -- probably not the best term, but it's the best term I could think of -- that do it just because there's a chance of a riot, that's not what the black bloc is all about.

Yes, as I said, their function is to engage the Police -- but they do this because, by doing this, the Police are unable to confront the rest of the protest.

There is a gross difference between genuine self-defense and indiviuals picking fights with the cops. Things started to go sour when some people burned a police car (probably intentionally parked there to start crap with the undisciplined Punkie-hippies.) and throwing things at the police.


Which makes the black bloc, in affect, particularly on larger protests, the protests protection. They're the people who'll stop everyone else from getting a Police baton across the head; they're the people who'll stop the Police from just rounding up and arresting hundreds of protesters.

In effect, they help to ensure that the protest takes place.

Mass union intervention, stewarding, striking, etc. has proven to be far more effective.


That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate criticisms of the black bloc. Particularly with regards their role in smaller protests, and protests where confrontation needs to be avoided. But, anti-G8 protests are neither of these -- they're not small, and confrontation is expected.

So, in that regard, the black bloc shouldn't be excluded from the protest -- in fact, their presence is needed.

Individual fighting and hooligan tactics aren't going to work. The Spanish Students Union (either in 1986 or 1987 I think...can't recall the year, proved how to do things. Fascist thugs and police were effectively stopped, and they were successful, in spite of some hooligans picking fights with the cops.


Moving on, and on the subject of passivity, non-confrontational tactics will never bring militancy. Nor will they ever lead to success -- and history has shown that. Just look at the Poll Tax riots, the Miners Strike, the Civil Rights Movement, the fight for the 8 hour workday, etc., etc.

There is a gross difference between a disciplined approach and hooligan tactics.


Confrontation occurred in all of those movements, and in some cases, it was winning these confrontations that led to victory. The Poll Tax riots certainly didn't "play into the hands of the bourgeoisie", far from it.

And no doubt contrary to the gospel of Grant and Woods, it was not the political declarations of the parties involved that stopped the Poll Tax from being introduced. Or the peaceful demonstrations compromising a handful of leftists and a few banners. It was the working class taking on the state, and winning.

It also takes correct leadership as well to get things going. Marxists don't reduce things to "magical individuals." There is a dialectical relationship between the two. The German Revolution didn't get anywhere due to the bungling of Stalin and Bukharin, the Spanish Revoution was ruined by lack of good leadership (Stalin deliberately sabotaging the revolution, the POUM's centrism, the anarchists refusing to take power when they could have, etc.), the French CP leadership messed up 1968, etc. in spite of correct orientations of the masses.


Which tells us, quite clearly, what is required for victory.

And what is required is not punkie-hippie hooligan stuff.


Not that I'd disagree with this position, but I'd love to hear your reasoning behind this position. Because, I'd wager that it doesn't stem from a pragmatic, materialist standpoint -- but your moral objections to alcohol and drug use.

If you really must know, I do use alcohol every now and then myself. I think the reasoning for excluding such things from the protest is obvious. My criticisms that have been so distorted about my comment on the theoretical level and this kind of stuff are criticism aimed against those who substitue parties and sex for organizational work, wasting entire weekends and the like on such things. I am personally against drugs due to their highly negative and destructive effects on the neurons (some people that use too much of the stuff can also become highly destructive. I also think that with the elimination of class society, drug use could very well stop, as there would be nothing to cause one to resort to "escapism."), and personallly against "one night stands" due to such a relationship being utterly devoid of meaning.

We all do leisurely things every now and then, but substiuting them for actual work is completely nonsensical and counterproductive to the core. I don't spend all of my spare time drinking, playing video games, and shooting off my SKS's. There is much studying and involvement in the struggle to be done as well. So much to be done that I often don't get to do as many leisurely things as I would like to.

[RaiseYourVoice]

apart form the fact that your post is funny since it repeats the same nonsense about "punk-hippie-hooligans" (whatever the fuck that is)...

first of all you obviously know about nothing about the german working class. right now it is one of the most reactionary working class i've encountered. anti-communism is a people ideology in germany and has a long living culture. the biggest german unions "tried" to mobilize to heiligendamm... you know how many people came? about as many as there were from the SDAJ / DKP....
its nice to talk about the mystical "mass collective action" but you fail to give any way to get there. that is obviously because you condemn every militant action of the black block like the mainstream press does. the black block is not about "punk-hippies" its a group that can fall apart pretty quick, but unite in a battlefield in the same speed because the people know each other. it has nothing to do with individual fighting, they are actually fighting together, just without any top-down leadership, for the simple reason that in the current german class struggle and leadership could be easily taken down without much resistance.

yes there are individuals who dont care about a greater goal within the black block, but those are around at every demonstration if you want or not. therefor our aim should be, not to split the left, but rather to defend militant action as a part of our struggle again capitalism. we have to make clear to people that the real violence isnt coming from the black block, its not even coming from robocops at protests, the real violence is everyday oppression in capitalist countries and imperialist intervention everywhere in the world.

that doesnt mean that i think we should all adopt the fighting style of the black block, its important to radicalize the workers and make them join the protests as well. to get a radical working class, we have to work with them. the SDAJ shared a barrio with two of the biggest german unions and they actually realized that the violence was not coming from the black block, but rather from the police provokations. its a good start if more and more people experiance police oppression themselves AND get to know the black block as a reliable ally in class struggle. after all i saw in heiligendamm, next to some marxist groups and the anti-nuclear power movement it was the black block who was most disciplined. they were the ones protecting a mass of people from water cannons and every form of police brutality, they were the first ones to break through police chains etc. the big mass, that you obviously would rather side with, would just run away ones there is teargass around, the black block doesnt.

On a side note, one girl from the black block actually was impressed by our party discipline, because in our organisation we formed a group which made up the front of the blockades. we managed to organise most of the people behind us to break through the (rather small) police chains in front of the streets etc. i think both we lennies (or other "disciplined" *g* commies) and the black block can learn alot from each other and the only way we will smash this system for good is working together and not letting the ruling class splitt the worker movement again. i mean... they split us into nations and into races and we resisted, why should we let them split us into "good anti-cappies" and "bad anti-cappies". THAT really is what i would call playing into the hands of the ruling class

[Wanted Man]

RaiseYourVoice is right on the mark. Some countries simply do not have a very large militant worker movement, that is the material reality. From RYV's description, it's probably quite similar to here in the Netherlands. A great part of the far-left movement here is made up of student and middle class activists. The last great labour march was 3 years ago, when the Balkenende cabinet's cuts were at its worst and the labour unions finally mobilized some 500,000 people, but such actions are the exception rather than the norm, and usually do not occur until the big reformist union leaderships decide to. :( So it isn't immediately tied in to the far-left movements. That doesn't mean that the working class here can't be militant, but it just isn't going to be easy.

You can throw Grantite dogma at that all you like, but it still won't change the reality. Sorry to burst your bubble, Axel, but such weaknesses are not going to be solved by some kind of Dutch IMT puppet (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65259) entering the PvdA with a "Militant Tendency" only to end up getting expelled or something. You can preach about a "disciplined life-long socialist cadre" while denouncing the "punkie-hippies", but at the same time, you're being passed left and right by those same "punkie-hippies". Hell, even the hated "Stalinists" are gaining ground, which is pretty amazing considering the ideological blows suffered by that movement in '56, '68 and '89-'91.

So, with your ideological bankruptcy established(thanks to AS as well), let's get to your views on Rostock.


I have read a report from a Marxist that was there. It is true that the police were indeed also stirring up problems, but the fact is, and has always been, that hooligan and individual attacks on the police will always play into the hands of the bourgeoisie. The police aren't always the only ones that cause trouble. Only collective working class action can guarantee the way forward. Punkie-hippie nonsense is a stain on the movement.

(...)

There is a gross difference between genuine self-defense and indiviuals picking fights with the cops. Things started to go sour when some people burned a police car (probably intentionally parked there to start crap with the undisciplined Punkie-hippies.) and throwing things at the police.

So you've read a report? Well, okay, I believe you now, damn those punkie-hippies with their hooligan and individual attacks staining the movement! :lol: Come on, you could at least try to read different sources, or watch the videos I gave you which clearly show the police starting it. You are still blaming the protesters, in the face of contrary evidence. That is inexcusable.


Mass collective action has proven to be successful (such as the Spanish Students Union strike in...1986 or 1987...cant' remember the year.), the Bolshevik Revolution, general strikes, etc. Individual fighting and hooligan tactics have never been as such.
That's nice, but we don't have a Students Union in Rostock, or at least not one with the power to stage an effective strike and hold off the robocops, now do we? We've got to make do with what we've got and build from there.


It also takes correct leadership as well to get things going. Marxists don't reduce things to "magical individuals." There is a dialectical relationship between the two. The German Revolution didn't get anywhere due to the bungling of Stalin and Bukharin, the Spanish Revoution was ruined by lack of good leadership (Stalin deliberately sabotaging the revolution, the POUM's centrism, the anarchists refusing to take power when they could have, etc.), the French CP leadership messed up 1968, etc. in spite of correct orientations of the masses.
Here you go, invoking dialectics as if that ends things. Sadly, to continue from my last paragraph, dialectics can't change the current situation that we have to work in. I'm not sure why there is the sneer at Stalin, Bukharin, POUM, the Spanish anarchists and the PCF, but I do know that I don't care to discuss history with you. I do, however, find it funny that you blame their failure on individuals who were, ahh, "not magical enough". :lol: German Revolution failed? It's all Stalin and Bukharin! :lol:


If you really must know, I do use alcohol every now and then myself. I think the reasoning for excluding such things from the protest is obvious. My criticisms that have been so distorted about my comment on the theoretical level and this kind of stuff are criticism aimed against those who substitue parties and sex for organizational work, wasting entire weekends and the like on such things. I am personally against drugs due to their highly negative and destructive effects on the neurons (some people that use too much of the stuff can also become highly destructive. I also think that with the elimination of class society, drug use could very well stop, as there would be nothing to cause one to resort to "escapism."), and personallly against "one night stands" due to such a relationship being utterly devoid of meaning.

We all do leisurely things every now and then, but substiuting them for actual work is completely nonsensical and counterproductive to the core. I don't spend all of my spare time drinking, playing video games, and shooting off my SKS's. There is much studying and involvement in the struggle to be done as well. So much to be done that I often don't get to do as many leisurely things as I would like to.
I'm not even sure who you are trying to argue with here. Is this an extension of your ridiculous "You all get drunk and stoned and have orgies all day" attack from the CC? If so, I'm flattered that you would classify so many RevLeft members here as being sexually attractive enough to get involved in orgies. Sadly, I have not been in one yet. Since you seem to be an expert on this subject, could you get me an invitation to one?

Now, to get back to the real issues, I once again fully agree with RYV when he says:


i am not part of the black block obviously, but i appreciate them being with me. why? they dont start attacking us, its the police who does that. the black block is actually one of the few groups capable of keeping the police at distance, if only for some time. they were very disciplined in the blockades (even peacefull! rolleyes.gif )) especiall when compared to a mass of people who would run away the second they police wants them to. distancing from them to keep the capitalist press on our side is nothing but sectarian bullshit.

(...)

also the black block does not do what the police want like some "leftists" suggest in starting violence. the police actually wants to split the movement in "good protestors" who dont directly endanger the police or the system and "bad protestors" who do. anyone who joins in that discussion attacking the black block play into the hands of the ruling class.how can a rev. leftist join in the criminalisation of militant action if he sees the need for a violent revolution? if we let the black block be divided from the left now, how can a red militant action gain support in the future?
Spot on.

I know that if I ever got stuck in a riot with the police, I know who I would want to be stuck with. Rather Black Bloc "punkie-hippies"(:lol: ) who can help me defend myself, than a bunch of recycled Grantites running away as fast as they can while sneering at the rest of us for being violent "punkie-hippies".

Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.

:)

Edit to Axel: oh, you mentioned the need for "stewarding" while systematically excluding the whole Black Bloc for being "punkie-hippies". Well, I'm sure a group of comrades acting as stewards would be very helpful, but when the police are determined to crush the resistance, arrest people and interrogate them to learn more about the activist networks, I doubt that they will be able to keep me from getting my skull crushed as good as a determined fighting bloc. Excluding the latter from the protest entirely is sheer madness, there would be a lot more wounded. But hey, all out of "revolutionary necessity", right? :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)I have read a report from a Marxist that was there.[/b]

And? A report by "a Marxist", which you have neither reproduced nor linked, is supposed to be taken as gospel, is it? By all means, reproduce the report if you can -- because just mentioning it, then making a bunch of assertions, is not good enough. An assertion, not matter how often it is repeated, does not count as fact. Case in point:


Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)...but the fact is, and has always been, that hooligan and individual attacks on the police will always play into the hands of the bourgeoisie.[/b]

I've already addressed this, above. Just repeating it again, is not a legitimate form of debate.


Originally posted by Axel1917
Punkie-hippie nonsense is a stain on the movement.

I'm no authority on alternative culture -- indeed culturally, I'm pretty mainstream -- but even I know there's no such thing as a "Punkie-hippie". Never mind the fact that Crass have been gone for over a decade, it simply makes no sense.

And when the bulk of your argument is that a group of people are something that doesn't even exist -- "undisciplined Punkie-hippies" -- then your argument doesn't amount to much. So, please, if you're going to continue with this debate, debate the things that are; and not the things that exist in "Axel-land".

I mean, "Punkie-hippie", how divorced from reality can one person be?


Originally posted by Axel1917
(such as the Spanish Students Union strike in...1986 or 1987...cant' remember the year.)

There's very little on the internet regarding this, so I can't really gauge its significance in terms of being an alternative to what you criticising. Unless, of course, you provide some more information on the event.

However, a few preliminary questions can be asked. Was there any rioting? Confrontations with the Police, etc. If there was confrontation, did it contribute to the eventual victory of the Students Union? And, if the answer to those questions is yes, on what basis can you hold this example aloft as an example of the correct methods, whilst demonising the similar methods used by the anti-G8 protesters?

If it's simply the case, as I suspect, that you only promote this particular event because of the IMT's links with the Sindicato de Estudiantes -- then that is really a horrifying example of petty, and vulgar, factionalism. Completely devoid of any kind of political principle.
_ _ _ _ _

This aside, your point that "Mass collective action" is the way forward, seems flawed. Not because the point in and of itself is flawed, but because you seem to be deciding, based on your own petty political prejudices, what constitutes "Mass collective action" -- and what doesn't.

The 1986-87 Spanish Student Unions Strike, which was influenced by the IMT: "Mass collective action".

The "Bolshevik Revolution" -- significantly, in my view, not the Russian workers revolution, or the Russian revolution, just "the Bolshevik Revolution": "Mass collective action".

The large, mass anti-G8 mobilisations -- particularly the anarchist influenced elements: individualism, and hooliganism.

As I've said, both here and in other places, your politics, your analyses, and pretty much everything about you, seems, well is, guided by your petty political prejudices. And it leads to a situation where everything done by either the Bolsheviks', the Militant tendency, in its early stages, and the IMT, is viewed as "correct" -- where as everything else, is slandered and attacked.

And given your inadequacies, you don't even do this to the same standard of most sectarians. You just makes assertion upon assertion, using the language of the capitalist media, to slander a range of movements. No facts are presented, no debate is made -- just petty insult upon petty insult.

You've learnt something during those long hours of studying, but it certainly isn't principled communist politics.


Originally posted by Axel1917
Bolshevik ways have been the most successful...

Yet the Bolshevik Party, its general membership in particular, were not afraid of confrontation with the state, now were they?


Originally posted by Axel1917
There is a gross difference between genuine self-defense and indiviuals picking fights with the cops. Things started to go sour when some people burned a police car (probably intentionally parked there to start crap with the undisciplined Punkie-hippies.) and throwing things at the police.

That's not a response to the point I made, regarding the black blocs function at a protest. And nor is your account fact -- indeed, you've not even bothered to substantiate it.


Originally posted by Axel1917
Mass union intervention, stewarding, striking, etc. has proven to be far more effective.

And? No one here has said that the anti-G8 mobilisations are "the answer", the be all and end all. All that's been done in this thread, is to defend these mobilisations from unfounded attacks -- attacks that, primarily, have come from you.

And, by the way, it should be noted that the use of padded clothing, etc., has its roots in strikes. With padded jackets being useful in stopping the potency of a Police baton, and masks making it harder to pick out individuals on Police tapes. Because, funnily enough, it's been known for a strike to evolve into a riot of some form.

Was the Battle of Orgreave an example of hooliganism? After all, according to most accounts, the striking Miners did start the hostilities -- they threw stones at the Police, and tried to push them back. So, are you going to pour vile over this? Surely, not even you would stoop that low...


Originally posted by Axel1917
Fascist thugs and police were effectively stopped...

How were they "stopped"?


Originally posted by Axel1917
There is a gross difference between a disciplined approach and hooligan tactics.

Well, go on then, explain this "difference". Because, again, an assertion is not simply a fact -- and just by saying that the anti-G8 protesters are "hooligans" does not make it so.

You've asserted something, and that means it is your responsibility to prove this assertion. Show how the anti-G8 protesters are "undisciplined hooligans", and show how the movements you've identified are not. Because if you don't do this, your argument won't mean shit.


[email protected]
It also takes correct leadership as well to get things going.

And there's certainly no shortage of potential suitors. Yet, despite all this, it is when the working class takes the struggle into its own hands, assuming leadership of it, that we start to see victories smile.


Axel1917
I think the reasoning for excluding such things from the protest is obvious.

Well, go on then, state it. After all, it would be nice if you provided one argument -- instead of just repeated assertions.

[Axel1917]

apart form the fact that your post is funny since it repeats the same nonsense about "punk-hippie-hooligans" (whatever the fuck that is)...

first of all you obviously know about nothing about the german working class. right now it is one of the most reactionary working class i've encountered. anti-communism is a people ideology in germany and has a long living culture. the biggest german unions "tried" to mobilize to heiligendamm... you know how many people came? about as many as there were from the SDAJ / DKP....

A working class being reactionary is no excuse for hooligan tactics. Have you even bothered studying history individual terrorism, hooligan tactics getting anywhere? Obviously not.


its nice to talk about the mystical "mass collective action" but you fail to give any way to get there. that is obviously because you condemn every militant action of the black block like the mainstream press does. the black block is not about "punk-hippies" its a group that can fall apart pretty quick, but unite in a battlefield in the same speed because the people know each other. it has nothing to do with individual fighting, they are actually fighting together, just without any top-down leadership, for the simple reason that in the current german class struggle and leadership could be easily taken down without much resistance.

There is a wealth of information in this aspect from Bolshevik sources. I feel that you should strenghten your theoretical level. Hooligan tactics are not militant; they play into the hands of the capitalists, as they give the bourgeoisie an excuse to crack down on the movement.


yes there are individuals who dont care about a greater goal within the black block, but those are around at every demonstration if you want or not. therefor our aim should be, not to split the left, but rather to defend militant action as a part of our struggle again capitalism. we have to make clear to people that the real violence isnt coming from the black block, its not even coming from robocops at protests, the real violence is everyday oppression in capitalist countries and imperialist intervention everywhere in the world.

And more should be done to keep such people out, don't you think? We don't need such hooligans ruining the movement, now do we? The left has plenty of enemies within the left. It is not just the capitalists and the police.


that doesnt mean that i think we should all adopt the fighting style of the black block, its important to radicalize the workers and make them join the protests as well. to get a radical working class, we have to work with them. the SDAJ shared a barrio with two of the biggest german unions and they actually realized that the violence was not coming from the black block, but rather from the police provokations. its a good start if more and more people experiance police oppression themselves AND get to know the black block as a reliable ally in class struggle. after all i saw in heiligendamm, next to some marxist groups and the anti-nuclear power movement it was the black block who was most disciplined. they were the ones protecting a mass of people from water cannons and every form of police brutality, they were the first ones to break through police chains etc. the big mass, that you obviously would rather side with, would just run away ones there is teargass around, the black block doesnt.

And how are hooligan tactics working with the working class? You have to enter their traditional organizations, no matter how "bourgeoisifed" they are. A fact that has been proven by history, yet rejected by so many of a neo-idealist left.


On a side note, one girl from the black block actually was impressed by our party discipline, because in our organisation we formed a group which made up the front of the blockades. we managed to organise most of the people behind us to break through the (rather small) police chains in front of the streets etc. i think both we lennies (or other "disciplined" *g* commies) and the black block can learn alot from each other and the only way we will smash this system for good is working together and not letting the ruling class splitt the worker movement again. i mean... they split us into nations and into races and we resisted, why should we let them split us into "good anti-cappies" and "bad anti-cappies". THAT really is what i would call playing into the hands of the ruling class

And one thing that can be learned from "Lennies" is that hooligan tactics are reactionary and only play into the hands of the bourgeoisie. There has never been a mass movement that has started from such tactics, nor will there ever be.


RaiseYourVoice is right on the mark. Some countries simply do not have a very large militant worker movement, that is the material reality. From RYV's description, it's probably quite similar to here in the Netherlands. A great part of the far-left movement here is made up of student and middle class activists. The last great labour march was 3 years ago, when the Balkenende cabinet's cuts were at its worst and the labour unions finally mobilized some 500,000 people, but such actions are the exception rather than the norm, and usually do not occur until the big reformist union leaderships decide to. So it isn't immediately tied in to the far-left movements. That doesn't mean that the working class here can't be militant, but it just isn't going to be easy.


So what if the movement is "not big?" Doesn't that show that we need correct tactics more than ever?


You can throw Grantite dogma at that all you like, but it still won't change the reality. Sorry to burst your bubble, Axel, but such weaknesses are not going to be solved by some kind of Dutch IMT puppet entering the PvdA with a "Militant Tendency" only to end up getting expelled or something. You can preach about a "disciplined life-long socialist cadre" while denouncing the "punkie-hippies", but at the same time, you're being passed left and right by those same "punkie-hippies". Hell, even the hated "Stalinists" are gaining ground, which is pretty amazing considering the ideological blows suffered by that movement in '56, '68 and '89-'91.

Unfortunately, I am only fluent in English, so I can't understand that "Dutch IMT Puppet" post. History is proving the IMT to be 100% correct, though, and our successes are what draw the hysterical attacks of the ultra-left sects.


So, with your ideological bankruptcy established(thanks to AS as well), let's get to your views on Rostock.

Thus far, only your ideological bankruptcy has been established, since your types have never been able to accomplish a successful mass movement of any kind.


So you've read a report? Well, okay, I believe you now, damn those punkie-hippies with their hooligan and individual attacks staining the movement! Come on, you could at least try to read different sources, or watch the videos I gave you which clearly show the police starting it. You are still blaming the protesters, in the face of contrary evidence. That is inexcusable.

The report did say that the police also were provoking things. I am not blaming all protestors, but the hooligans.

*EDIT* Link at http://www.marxist.com/g8-summit-germany-p...lence070607.htm (http://www.marxist.com/g8-summit-germany-police-violence070607.htm)


That's nice, but we don't have a Students Union in Rostock, or at least not one with the power to stage an effective strike and hold off the robocops, now do we? We've got to make do with what we've got and build from there.

That is no excuse to condone hooligan tactics. What you are doing is damaging the left and helping prevent going forward, as history has so richly shown.


Here you go, invoking dialectics as if that ends things. Sadly, to continue from my last paragraph, dialectics can't change the current situation that we have to work in. I'm not sure why there is the sneer at Stalin, Bukharin, POUM, the Spanish anarchists and the PCF, but I do know that I don't care to discuss history with you. I do, however, find it funny that you blame their failure on individuals who were, ahh, "not magical enough". German Revolution failed? It's all Stalin and Bukharin!

So you don't care to discuss history, i.e. learn from it! A mistake! Fix it! Also, I don't reduce things to "magical people" as I already said. Read up on the aspect of the role of the individual in history.


I'm not even sure who you are trying to argue with here. Is this an extension of your ridiculous "You all get drunk and stoned and have orgies all day" attack from the CC? If so, I'm flattered that you would classify so many RevLeft members here as being sexually attractive enough to get involved in orgies. Sadly, I have not been in one yet. Since you seem to be an expert on this subject, could you get me an invitation to one?

I was making a point, in that my initial aspect here was not some revision of MIM nonsense.


Now, to get back to the real issues, I once again fully agree with RYV when he says:

i am not part of the black block obviously, but i appreciate them being with me. why? they dont start attacking us, its the police who does that. the black block is actually one of the few groups capable of keeping the police at distance, if only for some time. they were very disciplined in the blockades (even peacefull! rolleyes.gif )) especiall when compared to a mass of people who would run away the second they police wants them to. distancing from them to keep the capitalist press on our side is nothing but sectarian bullshit.

(...)

also the black block does not do what the police want like some "leftists" suggest in starting violence. the police actually wants to split the movement in "good protestors" who dont directly endanger the police or the system and "bad protestors" who do. anyone who joins in that discussion attacking the black block play into the hands of the ruling class.how can a rev. leftist join in the criminalisation of militant action if he sees the need for a violent revolution? if we let the black block be divided from the left now, how can a red militant action gain support in the future?

Spot on.

You would have a point, but there were some that did star stirring up things with the police. Why didn't the Black Bloc do more to keep such people out of the protest? Why wasn't there more focus on unions and stewarding? Why are you defending the hooligan tactics that do in fact play into the hands of the bourgeoisie?


I know that if I ever got stuck in a riot with the police, I know who I would want to be stuck with. Rather Black Bloc "punkie-hippies"(laugh.gif ) who can help me defend myself, than a bunch of recycled Grantites running away as fast as they can while sneering at the rest of us for being violent "punkie-hippies".

We have had successes in self-defense, such as the 1986 to 1987 Spanish Students' Union movement. We had well-informed stewards there, complete with communications equipment to quickly organize a defense against the police and the fascists. Around 1000 of the stewards were armed. There were some sectarians at that time that showed up just to clash with the police. Unlike the demonstration of Dec. 4th, due to such disciplined organization, few dared to even attack the protestors at this point in time. What have things like individual terrorism accomplished? More reaction, that is what. Look at the Narodniks, 9/11, etc.


Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.

smile.gif

Anyone can fly a red flag. Actually upholding what it stands for is an entirely different manner.


Edit to Axel: oh, you mentioned the need for "stewarding" while systematically excluding the whole Black Bloc for being "punkie-hippies". Well, I'm sure a group of comrades acting as stewards would be very helpful, but when the police are determined to crush the resistance, arrest people and interrogate them to learn more about the activist networks, I doubt that they will be able to keep me from getting my skull crushed as good as a determined fighting bloc. Excluding the latter from the protest entirely is sheer madness, there would be a lot more wounded. But hey, all out of "revolutionary necessity", right? laugh.gif

As I mentioned above, the stewarding in the Spanish Students' Union demos in 1986 to 1987 did help in this aspect. A majority of those in black, from the aforementioned report, did not display any violence, but the small groups of punkie-hippies that do are a threat to the movement. Anyone there should get the unions involved, get to stewarding, informing, arming, and organizing the stewards, etc. How can you just defend the actions of people that play into the hands of the bourgeoisie?



i have actually studied various forms of terrorism. i dont know the point of that question though, because i dont see how defending yourself and the protestors around you against police brutality (armed if needed) is individual terrorism. with the police procateurs inside demonstrations, with the thread of "terrorism" and yes also with the fact that there always will be some idiots in all demonstrations, the police will ALWAYS find a reason to crack down on us. the question is just if we let them do it or fight back.

They will try to find a reason, but if some small group of cretins provides that reason, it will help discredit the movement and give them excuses for all kinds of crackdowns.


yea lets controll everyone that goes to a 80.000 people demonstration, not even the police is stupid enough to try that. that is apart from the fact that this discussion was about the black block as such and not about individual idiots.

You people supporting the black blocs seem to be supporting these individual idiots, or some of you at least. Shouldn't your black blocs be doing more to at least try to keep such people in line during the protest?


how did i say it is?

Some here seem to think they are.


agreed, but what does that tell us about throwing stones at cops? we have to radicalise them, not get de-radicalised by them.

And we also need to show that we do not condone such actions either.



it does. you dont seem to have one though. apart from "lets go into the unions and start a mass struggle"

Pointing out how things could have gone better at the G8 demonstrations is getting this aspect wrong?


we are specifically discussion the black blocks fighting style when a demonstration is escalating, not a "revolution in 5 steps" guide. sure there has never been a mass movement from this alone. there has never been any mass movement started from a tactic used at demonstrations.

And again, things could have fared far better if there were more focusing on stwearding, labor putting its stamp on the movement, protecting the protest from thugs and rioters, in addition to the police, etc. \


And? A report by "a Marxist", which you have neither reproduced nor linked, is supposed to be taken as gospel, is it? By all means, reproduce the report if you can -- because just mentioning it, then making a bunch of assertions, is not good enough. An assertion, not matter how often it is repeated, does not count as fact. Case in point:

Nothing should be taken as gospel. I have produced the link above. Of course, this charge is hypocritical, since your points are often nothing but profanity and baseless assertions.


I've already addressed this, above. Just repeating it again, is not a legitimate form of debate.

What happened after the Narodniks, 9/11, etc.? I don't recall the ruling class getting more permissive in regard to its dictatorship.


I'm no authority on alternative culture -- indeed culturally, I'm pretty mainstream -- but even I know there's no such thing as a "Punkie-hippie". Never mind the fact that Crass have been gone for over a decade, it simply makes no sense.

I think it is a funny term. I am not sure of its origin...Spanish, perhaps. But I think it is clear by the context that I am referring to individual rioters, thugs, hooligans,.


And when the bulk of your argument is that a group of people are something that doesn't even exist -- "undisciplined Punkie-hippies" -- then your argument doesn't amount to much. So, please, if you're going to continue with this debate, debate the things that are; and not the things that exist in "Axel-land".

See above. I am also not a subjective idealist. This charge is also hypocritical given that you like to make posts that are all profanity and no content.


I mean, "Punkie-hippie", how divorced from reality can one person be?

How divorced from reality can you to be think that rioting and picking individual fights with the police are militant?


There's very little on the internet regarding this, so I can't really gauge its significance in terms of being an alternative to what you criticising. Unless, of course, you provide some more information on the event.

I haven't been able to find much on the Internet itself as of yet.


However, a few preliminary questions can be asked. Was there any rioting? Confrontations with the Police, etc. If there was confrontation, did it contribute to the eventual victory of the Students Union? And, if the answer to those questions is yes, on what basis can you hold this example aloft as an example of the correct methods, whilst demonising the similar methods used by the anti-G8 protesters?

There were some sectarians that did show up just to cause trouble with the police in some instances. The media liked to focus on this instead of the movement. There was a demonstration that was attacked by the police, this causing them to organize and make the next one a successfully protected one.


If it's simply the case, as I suspect, that you only promote this particular event because of the IMT's links with the Sindicato de Estudiantes -- then that is really a horrifying example of petty, and vulgar, factionalism. Completely devoid of any kind of political principle.

It is not because of the IMT's links, but rather to show that the methods used were what led to success. I would still cite it if some non-IMT group managed to to such a thing.


This aside, your point that "Mass collective action" is the way forward, seems flawed. Not because the point in and of itself is flawed, but because you seem to be deciding, based on your own petty political prejudices, what constitutes "Mass collective action" -- and what doesn't.

The 1986-87 Spanish Student Unions Strike, which was influenced by the IMT: "Mass collective action".

It was the success that made me cite it. If it succeeded with some other non-IMT group, I would have still cited it.


The "Bolshevik Revolution" -- significantly, in my view, not the Russian workers revolution, or the Russian revolution, just "the Bolshevik Revolution": "Mass collective action".

You believe in that fairy tale depicting Lenin, Trotsky, and 8000 Bolsheviks using magic powers to overcome the will of the majority, with the state apparatus behind them?


The large, mass anti-G8 mobilisations -- particularly the anarchist influenced elements: individualism, and hooliganism.

As I've said, both here and in other places, your politics, your analyses, and pretty much everything about you, seems, well is, guided by your petty political prejudices. And it leads to a situation where everything done by either the Bolsheviks', the Militant tendency, in its early stages, and the IMT, is viewed as "correct" -- where as everything else, is slandered and attacked.

Baseless accusation here. Analyzing history shows that more could have been done to make the demonstrations more successful. The elements that did engage in hooligan tactics did the police a favor by giving them excuses to crack down. Yes, there are times to defend ourselves from the police, but to defend the actions of hooligans that resort to individual terrorism, that is downright reactionary.


And given your inadequacies, you don't even do this to the same standard of most sectarians. You just makes assertion upon assertion, using the language of the capitalist media, to slander a range of movements. No facts are presented, no debate is made -- just petty insult upon petty insult.

Hypocrisy on your behalf, not to mention that I seriously doubt that you can even define sectarian in the Marxist sense.


You've learnt something during those long hours of studying, but it certainly isn't principled communist politics.

I don't see your tendency (assuming that you are even in one) getting anywhere.


Yet the Bolshevik Party, its general membership in particular, were not afraid of confrontation with the state, now were they?

No, and neither am I, but the Bolsheviks did make note of the counterproductive ways of individual terrorism.


That's not a response to the point I made, regarding the black blocs function at a protest. And nor is your account fact -- indeed, you've not even bothered to substantiate it.

I have put the link forth. And like you have bothered to substantiate your points? Most of your rebuttals are often profanity.


And? No one here has said that the anti-G8 mobilisations are "the answer", the be all and end all. All that's been done in this thread, is to defend these mobilisations from unfounded attacks -- attacks that, primarily, have come from you.

The mobilizations could have worked better if they were more union-linked, had organized stewarding for defense from hooligans and cops, etc.


And, by the way, it should be noted that the use of padded clothing, etc., has its roots in strikes. With padded jackets being useful in stopping the potency of a Police baton, and masks making it harder to pick out individuals on Police tapes. Because, funnily enough, it's been known for a strike to evolve into a riot of some form.


Was the Battle of Orgreave an example of hooliganism? After all, according to most accounts, the striking Miners did start the hostilities -- they threw stones at the Police, and tried to push them back. So, are you going to pour vile over this? Surely, not even you would stoop that low...

There is a difference between mass action and a small group of individual hooligans engaging in fighting with the police. The point is that the police were not the only reactionaries in this protest.


How were they "stopped"?

They did not even dare to attack such a well organized and disciplined defense of over 100,000 protestors. The few fascists that did try to attack became immediately acquainted with the pavement.


Well, go on then, explain this "difference". Because, again, an assertion is not simply a fact -- and just by saying that the anti-G8 protesters are "hooligans" does not make it so.

Getting the unions involved, stewarding, keeping people well-informed, organizing the defense, etc. help constitue a discplined approach, having theory as a guide to action. Small groups of hooligans resorting to individual rioting, individual fighting with the police, etc. and your support of it is not. What needs to be done is to protect the protest from rioters, thugs, and police. Some rioters and thugs are often police agents that are out to get the police into action. Regardless if the rioters and thugs are cops or leftists, the protest needs to be protected from them.


You've asserted something, and that means it is your responsibility to prove this assertion. Show how the anti-G8 protesters are "undisciplined hooligans", and show how the movements you've identified are not. Because if you don't do this, your argument won't mean shit.

Where did I ever assert that the bulk of the protestors were undisciplined hooligans? The hooligans were the ones that started picking fights with the cops, individual rioting, and the like. Don't put words in my mouth. I know that people like yourself condone individual terrorism (you even threatened me with violence when I refused to believe your anti-IMT lies in the chat.), and therefore play into the hands of the bourgeoisie.


And there's certainly no shortage of potential suitors. Yet, despite all this, it is when the working class takes the struggle into its own hands, assuming leadership of it, that we start to see victories smile.

It takes correct theory, ideas, method, etc. of the leadership as well. The Bolsheviks got somewhere. Stalinst-Menshevik two stage theory nonsense? Nope. Stalinist CP in France in 1968? Nope. Anarchist, Stalinist, and Social-Democratic leadership in the Spanish Revolution? Nope. Individual terrorism, such as the Narodniks? Hell no. That resulted in a strengthening of reaction.


Well, go on then, state it. After all, it would be nice if you provided one argument -- instead of just repeated assertions.

You honestly don't know why drugs and booze should be excluded from the protests? The illegal drugs would give the cops to crack down and label the left as "engraged potheads" for sure. Not to mention that given how such things have a tendency to impair judgment, it could lead to even some discplined people resorting to individual rioting, individual fighting with the police, etc.

Dick Dasardly's profanity and ignoring of the example of the '86-'87 SSU shows that he does not care for theory. He ignores my examples and then goes on raving about how I don't put any forth. His frequent profanity and utter lack of understanding of anything I said can only make me conclude that by his support of hooligan tactics, he supports the reactionary bourgeoisie, for those tactics only play into their hands. I seriously doubt by the display of immaturity that this poster's synopsis of the IMT "douchebag" can be correct.

[bezdomni]

You sound like an old man who is yelling at kids for being on his lawn.

[RaiseYourVoice]

A working class being reactionary is no excuse for hooligan tactics. Have you even bothered studying history individual terrorism, hooligan tactics getting anywhere? Obviously not.
i have actually studied various forms of terrorism. i dont know the point of that question though, because i dont see how defending yourself and the protestors around you against police brutality (armed if needed) is individual terrorism. with the police procateurs inside demonstrations, with the thread of "terrorism" and yes also with the fact that there always will be some idiots in all demonstrations, the police will ALWAYS find a reason to crack down on us. the question is just if we let them do it or fight back.


And more should be done to keep such people out, don't you think? We don't need such hooligans ruining the movement, now do we? The left has plenty of enemies within the left. It is not just the capitalists and the police.
yea lets controll everyone that goes to a 80.000 people demonstration, not even the police is stupid enough to try that. that is apart from the fact that this discussion was about the black block as such and not about individual idiots.


And how are hooligan tactics working with the working class?
how did i say it is?



You have to enter their traditional organizations, no matter how "bourgeoisifed" they are. A fact that has been proven by history, yet rejected by so many of a neo-idealist left.

agreed, but what does that tell us about throwing stones at cops? we have to radicalise them, not get de-radicalised by them.


So what if the movement is "not big?" Doesn't that show that we need correct tactics more than ever?
it does. you dont seem to have one though. apart from "lets go into the unions and start a mass struggle"


And one thing that can be learned from "Lennies" is that hooligan tactics are reactionary and only play into the hands of the bourgeoisie. There has never been a mass movement that has started from such tactics, nor will there ever be.

we are specifically discussion the black blocks fighting style when a demonstration is escalating, not a "revolution in 5 steps" guide. sure there has never been a mass movement from this alone. there has never been any mass movement started from a tactic used at demonstrations.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 12, 2007 08:08 pm
I'm no authority on alternative culture -- indeed culturally, I'm pretty mainstream -- but even I know there's no such thing as a "Punkie-hippie". Never mind the fact that Crass have been gone for over a decade, it simply makes no sense.

And when the bulk of your argument is that a group of people are something that doesn't even exist -- "undisciplined Punkie-hippies" -- then your argument doesn't amount to much. So, please, if you're going to continue with this debate, debate the things that are; and not the things that exist in "Axel-land".

I mean, "Punkie-hippie", how divorced from reality can one person be?


LOL. Yeah no kidding. It's like the conservatives who call punks "hippies with mohawks." Different forms of leftist subculture here, guys. Punk was more about individuals starting up a band with an idea to deal with serious issues, problems, etc. than about any "creative communes." That's probably why punk has been able to regenerate itself continually, which is good. It's well known that hippies were peace loving reformists, most of whom stopped short of calls for revolution (giving that they were often on major labels and all) and either hid their progressive politics behind weird analogies and metaphors or had none at all, or worse just talked about drugs.

The punks were/are more radical and direct in their politics, and had no qualms about advocating revolution given that they were on their own labels (real punk, that is). Even SS Decontrol, generally considered somewhat conservative, for punk that is, had songs advocating the rise of youth and the overthrow of the system. Ironically, it was the Youth Crew bands who perhaps were closest to hippies in terms of progressive politics, anti-war, non-violence, etc., but they were a straight-edge and known for violent shows anyway. They all generally hated hippies.

Most of the punk communites that did exist (FSU, No Rio, Crass, etc.) were anarcho-punk, decidedly to the left of hippies. Not that hard people. Those communes didn't work together as well as the hippies though. And of course there were non-radical bands, practically democrats (US sense), but they were always straight talkin', didn't take any shit, and some of the most hardcore bands out there, which is what I loved about punk.

Anyway, I agree with what's been said here. So some punk (or whoever) throws a brick through a hardware store. Who really gives a shit? What about the fact that the Coca-Cola plants in the third world hire thugs that go out and shoot and kill labor union organizers and so on -- even at times mutilating people? This is all documented at the Coke Kills website.

That's decidedly worse than some minor property damage, but you don't hear the mainstream media covering that. Fact is these large mobilizations are really some of the only alternative coverage you're going to get from the mainstream media in the issue of G8, WTO, etc.

A bunch of (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUJPrrqeidY) hippies if (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRULqTMqF7w) I ever (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRhcart5Wzo) saw any (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nJqT1YBHdI). :rolleyes:

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Axel1917+June 13, 2007 07:04 pm--> (Axel1917 @ June 13, 2007 07:04 pm) A working class being reactionary is no excuse for hooligan tactics. Have you even bothered studying history individual terrorism, hooligan tactics getting anywhere? Obviously not. [/b]
Clearly. Okay, let's have a protest the way you like it: no "punkie-hippies", especially no Black Bloc. German plainclothes cops try to arrest someone for some stupid victimless crime like "masking up". They are backed up by a rank of robocops. The situation gets tense, people are yelling "Haut ab!" and "Keine Gewalt!", but agent provocateurs disguised as activists try to incite violence.

Now then, what would you propose as an alternative to "hooligan tactics"(your ridiculous slur for mounting an effective defence against the cops so that innocent protesters don't get their heads bashed in)? Come on, tell us, you must be a master tactician. In fact, you can be called Brigadier General Axel if you want. Your orders, general? :lol:


Originally posted by Axel+--> (Axel)There is a wealth of information in this aspect from Bolshevik sources. I feel that you should strenghten your theoretical level. Hooligan tactics are not militant; they play into the hands of the capitalists, as they give the bourgeoisie an excuse to crack down on the movement.[/b]
But we're not the fucking Bolsheviks, are we now? You still don't have an alternative, except for vague slogans like "Bolshevik tactics". And you're still using "hooligan tactics" to slur people who defend themselves and their comrades pretty efficiently. All because you saw some kid throwing a stone on FOX News and an article from your particular tendency said that "hooligan tactics are wrong".


Originally posted by Axel
And more should be done to keep such people out, don't you think? We don't need such hooligans ruining the movement, now do we? The left has plenty of enemies within the left. It is not just the capitalists and the police.
As you command, general, the punkie-hippies have been dismissed! Now, the police are storming us. What is your tactical advice?


Originally posted by Axel
And how are hooligan tactics working with the working class? You have to enter their traditional organizations, no matter how "bourgeoisifed" they are. A fact that has been proven by history, yet rejected by so many of a neo-idealist left.
Proven by history, indeed. Or at least, Neil Kinnock smirking at your "successes". :lol: I'm not sure what that has to do with "hooligan tactics", though. Let's look at Germany. Would you propose all of us massively entering the Linkspartei or even the SPD, and then going to the protest? Your ridiculous devotion to entrism isn't going to help much. Ted Grant's spirit isn't going to save your ass when you get jammed into a police van. And no Black Bloc either, because they were excluded for being "punkie-hippies". :lol:


Originally posted by Axel
And one thing that can be learned from "Lennies" is that hooligan tactics are reactionary and only play into the hands of the bourgeoisie. There has never been a mass movement that has started from such tactics, nor will there ever be.
Of course, "mass movement" is Newspeak for "the revolutionary movements that my political tendency approves of", namely the October Revolution, and the many great proletarian revolutions that have been accomplished by the CMI... oh, wait. Anyway, the circumstances in Russia 1917 are obviously completely different than they are now. Now, we don't have millions of disenchanted soldiers to help us defend the revolution, now do we? It all has to start somewhere. As if Stalin robbing banks to fund the Bolsheviks wasn't "criminal tactics" or however you would brand it.

As for the more recent tactics that you defend, well, all I can say is "very impressive". Especially the bit where your leaders did not make any noise when Tommy Sheridan promised to "name names" of those who participated in the Poll Tax riots. Can't have those "punkie-hippies" staining our movement, now can we? :lol:


Originally posted by Axel
So what if the movement is "not big?" Doesn't that show that we need correct tactics more than ever?
Of course. And until we don't have anything other than abstract slogans like "correct tactics" and "mass workers movements", we can just denounce all other attempts to do something as "hooligan tactics". :lol:


Originally posted by Axel
Unfortunately, I am only fluent in English, so I can't understand that "Dutch IMT Puppet" post. History is proving the IMT to be 100% correct, though, and our successes are what draw the hysterical attacks of the ultra-left sects.
Basically, some carpetbagger from the Belgian IMT section came into the Dutch forum trying to recruit founders for a new Dutch IMT section. All the members part of the already splintered far left here promptly told him to fuck off. The last thing we need here is some douchebag coming in to tell us that everything we've been doing so far is pointless and that we need the IMT's "correct tactics" to save our poor wretched souls. We don't need you. Go to the dustbin of history, where you belong, as the man said(someone whom I do not uphold, but still, the ground that he walked on is worth more than your crappy cult around him).

As for "your successes", don't make me laugh. What successes? You got into some British municipal councils and got some MPs, albeit under the flag of a big bourgeois party firstly and foremostly, and then you got booted out when that party's leadership had enough of your douchebaggery. Not that it matters, anyway, it's not like your crushing failure(let's not lie to ourselves, here) is anything other than a negative example to the rest of us.


Originally posted by Axel
Thus far, only your ideological bankruptcy has been established, since your types have never been able to accomplish a successful mass movement of any kind.
Clearly, that must be it. Nice bit of "logic" there. 80,000 protesters that can mount a defence against the agents of the capital = ideologically bankrupt. A bunch of people reading the gospel of Ted Grant while condemning those who end up fighting the police = accomplishing a successful mass movement.


Originally posted by Axel
The report did say that the police also were provoking things (I will produce this later...short on time.). I am not blaming all protestors, but the hooligans.
Oh, so that gives you a free ticket, now does it? Hell, even the bourgeois media have granted that "the protest was mostly peaceful" and "the police beat back hard". That doesn't change the fact that you are still falling for the bourgeois media's "divide and conquer" strategy by taking the sides of the police over those who defended themselves against them. By keeping up the media illusion of "good protesters" and "bad protesters", and condemning the latter while downplaying the police brutality, you are still taking the side of the police in the end.


[email protected]
That is no excuse to condone hooligan tactics. What you are doing is damaging the left and helping prevent going forward, as history has so richly shown.
Bullshit appeal to history. But fair enough, I'll stop "damaging the left". I'll just pull a Ted Grant and sit back as a comrade of mine appears on national television to state that he will rat out his comrades to the cops.


Axel
So you don't care to discuss history, i.e. learn from it! A mistake! Fix it! Also, I don't reduce things to "magical people" as I already said. Read up on the aspect of the role of the individual in history.
I care about history. You can throw excessive exclamation marks and bark commands at me all you like, Brigadier General, but I think I've learned quite a bit from history when I observe the utter failure of entrism for entrism's sake, or the brilliant "tactics" of narcing on your comrades in the hope that the police and bourgeois media will be kind to you.

And you do reduce things to "magical people", even though you loudly scream that you don't. By blaming all the mistakes of the movement on a single member of it, instead of, say the complete and utter strategic disadvantage of the Spanish Republic and its defenders, you are just as bad.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 12:52 pm


A collective mass action is needed. "Individual heroes" have done nothing but damage the movement.

It also takes correct leadership as well to get things going. Marxists don't reduce things to "magical individuals." There is a dialectical relationship between the two.


Indeed! Though, I would say that individuals don’t necessarily “damage” the “movement” but are, in the end, insignificant.




We all do leisurely things every now and then, but substiuting them for actual work is completely nonsensical and counterproductive to the core. I don't spend all of my spare time drinking, playing video games, and shooting off my SKS's. There is much studying and involvement in the struggle to be done as well. So much to be done that I often don't get to do as many leisurely things as I would like to.

Of course none of your work really matters though. You’re individual “work” is trivial. To be sure, Marxists don’t reduce things to “magical individuals.” The outcome of your “studying” and “involvement in the struggle” is immaterial to a “movement.”

So…perhaps you should stop spending much of your “free time” playing “individual hero”?

[Amusing Scrotum]

You know, I'm still no closer to actually understanding what Axel's criticism is. By that I mean, what logical criticism does he have of the anti-G8 mobilisations -- because, so far, his criticisms and logic are like an estranged couple. And they want absolutely nothing to do with each other.

He thinks the burning of a Police car was excessive, and it probably was. But if we look at the larger context, provided in the article Axel himself linked, we learn that "as the demo arrived at the harbour square where the rally and concert was about to start, trouble began as some individuals set fire to a police car, used refuse bins as barricades, and threw stones and bottles at the police."

Okay, there's the context. And, as you can see, the protesters involved were erecting barricades. But why did they do this? Well, the article hints at a reason:
Many of us who took part in the Rostock demo last Saturday witnessed how the massive presence of heavily armed riot police added fuel to the fire. In direct contrast to the official press statements, they did not try to contain the riots on the verge of the mass rally; rather they tried to break into the peaceful crowd. Eyewitnesses felt that the police obviously helped to escalate things so that even the most peaceful demonstrator would be imbued with tense emotion and aggression and shout insults at the police such as "piss off!"
Now, granted, the article doesn't provide a timeline. But it seems fairly clear, whatever the order of events was, that the Police attempted to disperse the protest and the protesters reacted by trying to hold their position.

A fairly common sequence of events.

After all, I've personally seen the Police do this when there's been very little or no provocation. So I don't think anyone can point a finger at the protesters here. Especially as, on larger protests like this one, 99.9% of the time, the Police come ready to do this -- crowd neutralisation is their aim.

And they'll either pen you, disperse you, or charge you -- or, in some cases, use a mixture of the three.

But whatever method they choose, they always want to neutralise the protest. And micromanage it as best as they can. That's a fact, and one that I think anyone with any kind of political experience will recognise.

And it's in this context, that my earlier example takes on extra importance. During the Battle of Orgreave, the striking miners not only attempted to hold their position, but also attempted to force the Police line back so that they could block the incoming lorries.

The situation escalated, stone were thrown, and in the end there was a small scale riot. Yet Axel has not criticised those involved here, despite the fact that they seem to have taken a more aggressive stance than those involved in the anti-G8 mobilisation.

Which baffles me, because it shows there's no internal logic to his criticisms.

Instead, it's just petty sectarianism. He puts petty political allegiances and prejudices above the movement, refuses to give solidarity to anyone who doesn't share his line, and criticises others unfairly. In short, he puts party dogma above all else. That is sectarianism; and yes, I do know the meaning of it Axel.

And given the above, it's not surprising that Axel's arguments bear no merit. That they contain assertion upon assertion, instead of principle and fact. And, with that in mind, I don't think there's much point in trying to conduct an honest political debate here.

Myself, and others, have put forth arguments, to which Axel has not responded. We've made our case, but he is simple unwilling to put his sectarianism aside and engage in honest political debate. So, frankly, I think there's little point engaging him any further.

We've made our points, presented our case, and in the absence of a principled response, that aims to prove the earlier accusations, we've won the debate.


Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)Of course, this charge is hypocritical, since your points are often nothing but profanity and baseless assertions.[/b]


Originally posted by [email protected]
This charge is also hypocritical given that you like to make posts that are all profanity and no content.

Yes, I use profanity. But I don't make "baseless assertions" -- what I say, I attempt to prove -- and my posts certainly don't lack "content". Indeed, quite a few members here have moaned that my posts contain too much content. In other words, I spend too much time trying to prove what I say.

So, please, find another line of attack. Because simple reversing my carefully crafted criticisms of you and your position, is not a valid debating method. Especially if you don't even attempt to prove what you say is actually true -- which is the case here.


Axel1917
The point is that the police were not the only reactionaries in this protest.

I think that quite clearly shows where you stand. And it sure ain't in solidarity.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by li[email protected] 05, 2007 05:34 am
the violent people, I don't call them protesters, they are only out to have their 'fights', harmed the peaceful demonstration. Nobody talks about the peaceful protesters.
I don't believe in violence. I have no respect for people who just come there to injure people. They are not better than those they allegedly *hate*.
Until you've been in the situation, you can't really comment. It's totally different looking at it from the outside and being there for many reasons.
1. You haven't weighed up the facts on the situation at all.
Violent protests dont just happen for no reason. Often, they will be sparked by something. And they are often in defence. (2.) Hell,most action we take is in defence, because the ruling class is always on the offensive - whether it be through the head of state ( by laws etc) or through the arms of it (physical repression, detention, etc).
Essentially, what you're saying is, though we're being constantly attacked and repressed, that we may only peacefully respond by saying "No, I do not approve" rather than standing up for ourselves and saying "Not only do we not approve, but we wont allow it to happen".
It's taking the struggle from peaceul protests - which often wont achieve much (though it can) - to resistance (which can change things).

It is essential to resist capitalism and the repressive institutions of our society at all times when we have the strength to do so. Because if we dont, it is we who will lose, not them. They will gain from it.

And they are indeed better than those who "hate", for they were fighting against tyranny, and oppression, not for it. You can't simply clasify "one in the same" because they have used a form of violence to defend themselves.
Hate groups use violence not to defend them selves against tyranny (although, that's a common façade they produce) or oppression, they use it as a means of putting fear into the hearts of people for things that they have done no wrong for, or that are out of their control - and which really shouldn't be issues (such as race, or sexuality).
But perhaps I misinterpreted that bit.

[Wanted Man]

I fully agree with AS, and I will not address any more of Axel's points until he can do something more than simply barrage us with baseless assertions(the only ones in this thread come from him!), and can make, as AS said, a "logical criticism" of the rioters in Rostock, and the position of the rest of the protestors towards them.

I also invite Axel to challenge the following facts:

-Police started the violence by forcibly trying to isolate someone who was masked up.
-They later used violence against the whole crowd.

As documented here (http://de.indymedia.org/2007/06/180758.shtml) and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa0WJ41lU6g).

After all, if the police was responsible for the violence, who in their right minds would criticize the protestors for defending themselves? So, Axel, unless you can prove these facts wrong, and prove that "punkie-hippies" started it, I don't think you really have a leg to stand on.

Even if the protestors did start it, you would still be faced with the tremendous task of formulating a logical criticism of them, because simply saying "they used hooligan tactics, and that is bad", does not a logical criticism make.

I'll remove myself from this thread until you have managed these challenges. Good luck. :)

[Axel1917]

We can clearly see from the first part of AS's post that he admits that I am correct, i.e. it started out when some hooligans set fire to a police car (which even he admits is excessive!), and then afterward, the police were adding fuel to this problematic fire that already started.

I still don't see where you guys get off thinking that I am attacking all of the protestors. I have repatedly stated that I was condeming the hooligan tactics carried out by a few individuals, and I did state that most of the people dressed in black were not violent. Instead of having an honest analysis, you guys start acting like a bunch of hardcore subjective idealist religious fundamentalists, ignoring the refuations and then continuing on saying the same crap over and over again.

I think AS's little initial confession is all that warrants examination, for it admits that I am right. The rest is more subjective idealist nonsense and baseless assertions (anarchism is founded on such things!). Some people need to grow up and stop acting like disgruntled children. Instead of studying up on theory and history to see how things work (I don't have time to literally spend around 4-8 hours making a single post, full of documents), they just resort to subjective idealism and get angry.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Fuck me mate, you can't be that dense. Go back and read my post again. Because simply pulling that one sentence out of context, divorcing it from the point I was making, and trying to claim you've won the argument based on that, is not an actual argument.

[Bilan]

I'm sorry to all those already debating him, I am not stealing your arguement, but this infuriated me.

Axel1917


The rest is more subjective idealist nonsense and baseless assertions (anarchism is founded on such things!).

I dont know what planet you're on, but I can tell you for free, it isn't this one. You're dellusional. You're understanding of anarchism is rubbish and is blatantly sectarian crap. The only thing here that was baseless was your accusations.

[Wanted Man]

You know, I just read the article that Axel posted, and I realized something: all his "arguments" in this thread are just him parroting that article. The reason that he can't back up his dumbass assertions, is that the article can't either! Axel, stop being such a Grant-bot and try formulating your own opinions for a change.

[bombeverything]

Lol Dick. This article sounds very similar to the one put out in Melbourne by "Socialist Alternative" after the G8 protest. This article stated that all anarchists should be ostracized from the left because they engaged in "undemocratic violence", a statement that thus officially sided with the state against the protesters. Solidarity? The ironic thing was their assertion that those who participated were “sectarian”, My point is that despite his pathetic attempt to ignore the issue, Axel is not simply attacking a number of so called apolitical "hooligans" but anarchist organizing in general.

Your problem Axel is your blind acceptance of other people's ideas, and an inability, or unwillingness to admit the real reason why you have such a problem with militant protesting; your own petty party politics and sectarianism. Your arguments against the protesters mirror that of the conservative media: through the use of the term “hooligans”, etc. Wow, could you please define a hooligan for me? Someone who misbehaves? Antisocial elements? Criminals? Seriously. You tell us to "grow up" yet treat us as children at the same time. Your issue with the protest was your inability to control it and nothing more. This is a reflection of your authoritarian politics.

And please elaborate on your comment that anarchism is idealist and based on baseless assertions. It seems like you know very little about anarchism despite your attempts to demonize it. Oh and yes Axel we can all clearly see that you are correct :lol:. If you put an argument forward you have to be prepared to back it up.

P.S: does anyone have a link to that article?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:54 am
There were some people engaging in reactionary actions, such as rioting and individual fighting with the police
Rioting has a specific political purpose and that is to confront, disorientate and aggreviate the police; a specific tool of the state used to defend property and the ruling class.

In situations like the G8, rioting is a significant part of protesting the control and authority of the bourgeoisie.


and as history has shown, these actions can only play into the hands of the bourgeoisie

How does history "show that"?


giving them all the excuses they need to crack down.

That's incredibly naive. The police don't need excuses.


A collective mass action is needed. "Individual heroes" have done nothing but damage the movement.

You mean the anarchist movement? As far as I could tell on the mass blockades there were no 'individual heroes' only collective mass action.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 06:53 pm
I have repatedly stated that I was condeming the hooligan tactics carried out by a few individuals
Who are these people? Who are these individual hooligans that you're talking about?

[The Feral Underclass]

I'd also like to point to Axel that it was the Block G8 and Socialists that called on black bloc for support at the blockades when the police cam to remove them. We did, of course, go to support them; that was even after they slated us to the press and called us Nazi's.

Were you even there at the G8?

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2007 01:27 pm
Were you even there at the G8?
He read a report by "a marxist". That's enough. Nevermind video evidence showing that the police were responsible for the violence, as long as we can read an article by "a marxist" and put words in AS's mouth, we can just pretend that the "punkie-hippies" were responsible, and then claim that the argument is won.

Anyway, that's an interesting factoid, TAT. I guess "hooligan tactics" are starting to look a lot better when there is nobody else who can effectively resist the cops.

[The Feral Underclass]

"Punkie-hippies" doesn't even make any sense...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 06:53 pm
The rest is more subjective idealist nonsense and baseless assertions (anarchism is founded on such things!)
Are you calling Marx's critique of capitalism and historical materialism "baseless assertions"?

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2007 03:13 pm
"Punkie-hippies" doesn't even make any sense...
Yeah, I think Axel just kept using it until someone called him on it, now he just ignores any reference to his use of that ridiculous term. Kind of sad, really.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2007 12:27 pm
I'd also like to point to Axel that it was the Block G8 and Socialists that called on black bloc for support at the blockades when the police cam to remove them. We did, of course, go to support them; that was even after they slated us to the press and called us Nazi's.

Were you even there at the G8?
Flights from over here in the US to Europe aren't exactly cheap. Unfortunately, I can't just go flying in and out of the country as I please on a janitor's wage.

History will show that my arguement is valid. It has done it in the past, and it will do so in the future. Instead of just making baseless assertions, why don't you people actually study history?


Are you calling Marx's critique of capitalism and historical materialism "baseless assertions"?

Marx did not advocate individual terrorism, and he also correctly understood the role of the state and the necessity of the proletariat setting up its own state after the revolution is won. Marxism and Anarchism have nothing in common.

By your logic, the Narodniks should have been able to make progress. Instead, they just ended up strengthening the reaction, just like how Bin Laden did on 9/11.

Perhaps you people should actually try formulting arguments instead of making baseless assertions, being bots of the "five mintue study session that teaches all that anarchism is about."

By the way, what are anarchism's successes? Wait, it has never had any. It is hands down the least successful area of leftism, and one of the most reactionary.

Stalin was dense as hell, but even he could figure out that you anarchists have a speciality of exposing your own ignorance whenever you speak. Hell, I will bet that a lot of OI people come here just to see your nonsense and get a good laugh.

But of course, some people aren't capbable of learning. Instead of studying up on history and theory, you punkie-hippies spend all of your free time at the orgies and the raves. No wonder why your theoretical levels are so low. If you will excuse me, I will find something else to do now. Plus I am sure that you really need to get to that rave tonight.

[Pawn Power]

Axel is clearly neurotic with some sort of anarcho-phobia. It impairs his judgment and ability to engage in rational discussion with those of the anarchist stripe.

This results in a variety of delusions in which his mind neglects information and comprehensible uncertainties in exchange for tenuous presumptions and self-sustaining repetition.

[bombeverything]

Instead of studying up on history and theory, you punkie-hippies spend all of your free time at the orgies and the raves. No wonder why your theoretical levels are so low. If you will excuse me, I will find something else to do now. Plus I am sure that you really need to get to that rave tonight.

"Punkie hippies" at raves? :lol:

Do you study? You claim to. Then you would understand that when you make an argument you must back it up. Like you have to do in a university paper.

As for anarchist successes the industrial collectives and workers militias during the Spanish Civil War is a good example of anarchism in practice, or the Russian Revolution before the power of the Soviets and Factory Committees were destroyed and brought under the control of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, effectively ensuring that control over the means of production was out of the hands of the working class.

Support for the Bolsheviks dissappeared when this became apparent by the way. The Paris Commune of 1871 also played an important role in the development of both anarchist ideas and the movement.

I also think you need to stop bagging peoples lifestyes and get one of your own.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by Axel1917+June 15, 2007 05:54 pm--> (Axel1917 @ June 15, 2007 05:54 pm)Marx did not advocate individual terrorism, and he also correctly understood the role of the state and the necessity of the proletariat setting up its own state after the revolution is won. Marxism and Anarchism have nothing in common. [/b]

Sometimes interpreting Marx can be quite difficult. Some anarchists claim he was imperialist, for example.

Would you say that Marx could also be seen as reformist? He also outlined some planks as to how better to achieve the socialist society in TCM (taxes, regulation, schools, health care). And then after Socialism was established you could ease your way into Communism.

While it's well known Marx quarreled with anarchists, communism is a stateless society after all, as well as classless. The collectives could be considered a state, though.


Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:54 pm
By the way, what are anarchism's successes? Wait, it has never had any. It is hands down the least successful area of leftism, and one of the most reactionary.

The Israeli-kibbutzim on the small scale, and the Spanish Revolution on the large scale. They were both working models forced to collapses by outside forces. The way many of the Indians lived pre-Columbus could be considered anarchy as well.


Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:54 pm
Stalin was dense as hell, but even he could figure out that you anarchists have a speciality of exposing your own ignorance whenever you speak.

Yeah, he also thought the same way about Marxists and socialists too. So did Lenin, btw... One of the first things he did was dismantle what the Soviets had accomplished and claimed that control of the factories should have managers (i.e. central planners) and so on, all under his authority, of course.

That's why the Castro/Stalin/mao/etc. paradigm ultimately fails. At the same time, I'm not dumb enough to claim had they not been there things would have been better. Pre-Soviet Russia millions were also dying because of consolidation of land and so forth, and it's been estimated that a free-market capitalist model would not have allowed them to develop into a super power and take care of health, the military (imagine an American Libertarian going to battle with hitler :rolleyes:), etc., but it's still obvious that they were bad men.



Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:54 pm
Hell, I will bet that a lot of OI people come here just to see your nonsense and get a good laugh.

LOL. Have you seen the people coloneldummy hangs out with? Not exactly your A-team of rightist intelligentsia. And he's generally considered the smart one. There are a lot of knee-jerk reactions here (some of them your own) but it is not quite at the level of right-wing forums as of yet.

I'm sure some do come here just for a laugh, though. Every forum has people who only have an emotional attachment to politics, and generally my experience has been it's right-wingers who do this. So that was a cheap shot.


[email protected] 15, 2007 05:54 pm
But of course, some people aren't capbable of learning. Instead of studying up on history and theory, you punkie-hippies spend all of your free time at the orgies and the raves. No wonder why your theoretical levels are so low. If you will excuse me, I will find something else to do now. Plus I am sure that you really need to get to that rave tonight.

History and theory are important, but as with any theory Marxism can be interpreted in different ways, and obviously has been. If you're all about theory just stick to the theoretical explanation of why petty property damage is detrimental to revolutionary theory instead of trying to attack these so-called "punkie-hippies" etc. If you have to reference them it'd probably be easier to call them hooligans, scoundrels, juvenile delinquents, etc.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:29 pm
Do you study? You claim to. Then you would understand that when you make an argument you must back it up. Like you have to do in a university paper.

As for anarchist successes the industrial collectives and workers militias during the Spanish Civil War is a good example of anarchism in practice, or the Russian Revolution before the power of the Soviets and Factory Committees were destroyed and brought under the control of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, effectively ensuring that control over the means of production was out of the hands of the working class.


Well put. Exactly right, of course. It should be noted I made my last post before I noticed this.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Axel1917+June 15, 2007 06:54 pm--> (Axel1917 @ June 15, 2007 06:54 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2007 12:27 pm
I'd also like to point to Axel that it was the Block G8 and Socialists that called on black bloc for support at the blockades when the police cam to remove them. We did, of course, go to support them; that was even after they slated us to the press and called us Nazi's.

History will show that my arguement is valid. [/b]
Well it hasn't so far and there's enough of it.


It has done it in the past, and it will do so in the future.

It would help if you could articulate your point clearly. Are you accusing the anarchist movement of advocating individual terrorism? If that is the case can you please demonstrate how it is? As far as I know the anarchist movement officially disbanded such tactics right back at the beginning of the century.

If you are claiming that rioting is defined as terrorism I think an explanation is in order, because in my opinion that is a great clutch at a big handful of straws.



Are you calling Marx's critique of capitalism and historical materialism "baseless assertions"?

Marx did not advocate individual terrorism, and he also correctly understood the role of the state and the necessity of the proletariat setting up its own state after the revolution is won.

You have evaded my question. Anarchism is based on Marx's own critique of capitalism and historical materialism - that is a fact. It has never been based on individual terrorism and no anarchist organisation advocates it.

In terms of the state - Marx made a hypothesis and as far as anarchists believe - that hypothesis was falsified. Regardless of what you may think of that opinion it is a fact that you have no idea how Marx would have reacted to the application of his theory and the conclusions of it. It is your opinion that he correctly understood it, not Karl Marx's.


Marxism and Anarchism have nothing in common.

That's simply, unequivocally not true and any study of anarchism would quickly demonstrate that.

I think you should take the time to understand the thing you are trying to attack.


By your logic, the Narodniks should have been able to make progress. Instead, they just ended up strengthening the reaction, just like how Bin Laden did on 9/11.

I'm not really sure what in gods name you're talking about and I suspect you don't really either. Are you claiming that rioting at spectacles like the G8 is the same as 9/11?

:blink:


Perhaps you people should actually try formulting arguments instead of making baseless assertions, being bots of the "five mintue study session that teaches all that anarchism is about."

Now you're just ranting!

I'm happy to 'formulate arguments' when it is necessary but so far you've presented nothing of any real substance instead relying on bourgeois misinformation and stereotypes.

If you have something to say that deserves a formulated answer, I am happy to present one. Otherwise you could just read the countless theoretical works written by anarchists throughout the last 150 years. They're on the Internet and they are many.


By the way, what are anarchism's successes? Wait, it has never had any. It is hands down the least successful area of leftism, and one of the most reactionary.

It is true that anarchism has had little opportunity on a national level but in my opinion that's not how one measures success. The amount of times a theory is applied is not verification of its legitimacy. You measure success by how well the theory is applied in practice and the conclusions of that not how many times it's been tried.

You test a hypothesis and it is either proven to be true or it is falsified. In terms of anarchism the theory was applied in Spain and, although there were obvious criticisms, the overall application of the theory was proven to work.

On the other hand, Marxism-Leninism has been applied numerous times and has failed (i.e. been falsified) at every attempt.


Stalin was dense as hell, but even he could figure out that you anarchists have a speciality of exposing your own ignorance whenever you speak.

For someone who bangs on about formulating arguments you clearly don't rely on them. Are you going to elaborate on this statement or is this just an opportunity for you to bash anarchism?

If you're jut going to slag anarchism off then fine by me, but I'd rather have a discussion about your clearly misguided opinions?

Do you think you're capable of that?


But of course, some people aren't capbable of learning.

I didn't realise that incapacity to learn was defined as: Not agreeing with Axel's opinions.


Instead of studying up on history and theory, you punkie-hippies spend all of your free time at the orgies and the raves.

:lol:

You're weirdo!


No wonder why your theoretical levels are so low.

If you want a political debate, then lets have one.


If you will excuse me, I will find something else to do now. Plus I am sure that you really need to get to that rave tonight.

When all else fails, act like a petulant child!

[freakazoid]

but to defend the actions of hooligans that resort to individual terrorism, that is downright reactionary.


By the way, what are anarchism's successes? Wait, it has never had any. It is hands down the least successful area of leftism, and one of the most reactionary.

I guess we should all be restricted then right? Keep on restricting members and restricting members until only the "true" revolutionary leftists remain. <_<


But of course, some people aren&#39;t capbable of learning. Instead of studying up on history and theory, you punkie-hippies spend all of your free time at the orgies and the raves.

I do? How... un-Christian of me, :(. Oh wait, I don&#39;t, <_<. And I do, sometimes, actually study and read.

[The Feral Underclass]

So is Axel not going to respond anymore then...?

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+June 20, 2007 01:36 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension &#064; June 20, 2007 01:36 pm) So is Axel not going to respond anymore then...? [/b]
He has found something else to do, as he said. I wonder what it is like, to voluntarily substitute parties for staying at home, and sex with other persons for stimulating oneself to the writings of Lenin, Trotsky, Grant, Woods, etc.


TAT
I&#39;m not really sure what in gods name you&#39;re talking about and I suspect you don&#39;t really either. Are you claiming that rioting at spectacles like the G8 is the same as 9/11?
Stop flying planes into buildings, you punkie-hippies, that&#39;s just individual hooligan tactics.

[The Feral Underclass]

So essentially when Axel makes assertions, calls everyone names then get&#39;s refuted and shown to be an idiot he throws a tantrum and refuses to play anymore?

It must suck being that shit

[Wanted Man]

What I want to know is: will Axel change his position now that his own cult (http://www.marxist.com/eyewitness-report-g8-summit-heiligendamm210607.htm) has finally taken a more honest position on the police crackdown?

Oh, wait, it&#39;s written by a member of the Left Youth. It seems that Axel is less radical than the social-democrats. :lol: I guess marxist.com publishes it because their German section works within the Left Party or something. Too bad they haven&#39;t deleted the blatant lies (http://www.marxist.com/g8-summit-germany-police-violence070607.htm) by their own Hans-Gerd Öfinger.

TAT, short answer: Yes.

Long answer: No, he is a real revolutionary, therefore he condemns individual punkie-hippie tactics like rioting at demonstrations or the 9/11 attacks. Anyone who disagrees with the gospel of Ted Grant obviously has a very low theoretical level because they are punkie-hippies who spend all their free time at the orgies and the raves.

I personally subscribe to Jazzratt&#39;s theory that people with "1917" in their names are insane.