Anarchists took control of St. Paul during RNC police admit [Archive]

bcbm

16th November 2008, 02:12

It was clear that you made a joke. I just don't think it's a joking matter. This is a serious issue. Hundreds of people have been arrested. The bourgeois seized on the events in question for propaganda. The folks who made the video seem to think that the anarchists really did take control, and of course that represents a real trend in the left. Of of this needs to be taken into account.

I don't think anyone there has actually suggested we "had control," though it was obvious the police were distracted and slow to respond. People took advantage of that but really nothing happened that hasn't happened at a major protest before. What went wrong here was that we vastly underestimated the police's desire to punish everyone and anyone they can. The charges they're throwing around and the level of prosecution here is unheard of for this sort of thing.

Just to be sure I understand your point, you're saying this wasn't worth the trouble?

Module

16th November 2008, 02:26

Black blocing is lifestylism.Black Bloc-ing is a protest tactic, not 'lifestylism'. :confused:

Nothing Human Is Alien

16th November 2008, 04:53

Just to be sure I understand your point, you're saying this wasn't worth the trouble?

I'm saying this was (and is, as long as defense of the folks arrested must continue) a waste of energy, time and resources.

bcbm

16th November 2008, 07:01

I'm saying this was (and is, as long as defense of the folks arrested must continue) a waste of energy, time and resources.

I don't think the time or energy that went into organizing this was a waste. This has been the most anarchist activity and organization I've seen and has gotten many new people involved, expanded projects, inspired people in areas where traditionally not much was happening to do more and spawned some solid networks that I hope will continue to expand and work. That the police responded as they did shouldn't be a surprise but it was to many of us- nobody was expecting to goto jail for decades for any of this shit because that was unheard of.

Nothing Human Is Alien

16th November 2008, 07:20

nobody was expecting to goto jail for decades for any of this shit because that was unheard of.

Are you kidding me?

Do the names Mumia Abu-Jamal, Fred Hampton, Mark Clark, George Jackson, Ferdinando Sacco, Bartolomeo Vanzetti, Julius Rosenberg, Ethel Rosenberg, Sam Melville, George Engel, Adolph Fischer, Albert Parsons, Michael Swab, August Spies, Samuel Fielden, and Louis Lingo ring any bells?

bcbm

16th November 2008, 08:41

Are you kidding me?

No, but with that list you must be kidding me.

Do the names Mumia Abu-Jamal, Fred Hampton, Mark Clark, George Jackson, Ferdinando Sacco, Bartolomeo Vanzetti, Julius Rosenberg, Ethel Rosenberg, Sam Melville, George Engel, Adolph Fischer, Albert Parsons, Michael Swab, August Spies, Samuel Fielden, and Louis Lingo ring any bells?

I was going to go through and individually point out how using those people as a point of comparison for possible repercussions for organizing basically a "typical" protest in the post-anti-globalization movement era isn't really relevant, but this summarizing sentence seems to communicate it just as effectively. What seems more reasonable would be to look at similar protests in the US in the past decade and what happened there and, indeed, I think this is what many of us involved did. So, using that point of departure, forgive us for not expecting the state to treat our organizing like it was being done by al-Qaeda and stage SWAT raids and throw terrorism charges around like they're going out of style because, as we naively concluded, that didn't happen after Seattle when shit really got fucked up, so why would it happen here? Obviously when you're doing things right the state will come down on you. We all recognized that but still didn't feel we'd gotten to this point. Lesson learned, don't worry.

Charles Xavier

16th November 2008, 16:44

Well how else would you take control?

Yeah, my friends who were just organizers who didn't even make it to the protests that are now facing conspiracy and terrorism charges were just asking for it. Go away.

I dunno about you but I see a bunch of kids smashing windows and vandalizing things on camera. Which did absolutely nothing of value to the working class movement. Maybe I'm missing something here...

bcbm

16th November 2008, 17:21

Maybe you should learn more about what is happening before you decide to weigh in on it. I've already described some of the positive benefits of the organizing, etc. Fuck off.

Incendiarism

16th November 2008, 18:36

I don't see how this could work out positively in the anarchist's favor. Those images show nothing but destruction, and as anarchists they should know this only serves to strengthen the idea anti-authoritarians are bomb throwing hooligans out to wring your neck.

While the idea of having the police overtaken sounds nice, I think they should learn how to conduct themselves.

bcbm

16th November 2008, 18:52

Well, I think the saying "No press is bad press" can be used somewhat accurately here. While images like those may serve to reinforce those ideas, they also give anarchism a lot of visibility and some people wonder "What's that all about" and decide to check it out. We saw a huge spike in anarchist activity following Seattle and in Europe after the G8 in Germany, so there was a sense of wanting to "go on the offensive again." Now that the big spectacle is over, we're left with some good organization and some serious projects to work on and I think a lot of awesome stuff is going on now that will further expand the movement and could even put us at the forefront of some important struggles.

YSR

16th November 2008, 18:59

I dunno about you but I see a bunch of kids smashing windows and vandalizing things on camera. Which did absolutely nothing of value to the working class movement. Maybe I'm missing something here...

Yeah, you're missing the fact that many of those "kids" were pissed off working class youth.

Well, I think the saying "No press is bad press" can be used somewhat accurately here.

I totally agree. Particularly since so many of the protests were explicitly nonviolent. Hopefully kids saw themselves on TV that night, getting lied about by the cops/media. That's a couple hundred more people who will never believe the corporate media again. And so when they see "dangerous anarchists in the street" they might think, "oh, those guys are okay."

Obviously, we can't just sit back and stop working, but these protests did provide a spike in terms of energy and recruitment. The downside is, for us as Twin Citians, we have to deal with all this continued repression in our communities. Of course, this would happen eventually one way or the other, but it sucks that it happens now, when we're in such a rebuilding mode.

JimmyJazz

16th November 2008, 22:24

Black Bloc-ing is a protest tactic, not 'lifestylism'. :confused:

Well, first of all, I'd say that even if that's true, "protesting" is an inherently reformist activity. I don't want to "protest" the capitalist state, but to replace it with a state that looks out for workers, with the eventual goal of eliminating the institutional role of the capitalist class so that "workers" merely describes "people". That's not to say protesting has no place, but it's not an end in itself for anyone honestly claiming the title of socialist.

At the same time, black bloc-ing is 100% ineffective even as a form of protest. It doesn't affect the state's power directly (by actually weakening its material ability to execute its will) or indirectly (by winning public/working class support for the anti-capitalist movement).

It's rioting, but rioting with other people whose attire lets you know that they share your values. Well that's great, but the public doesn't share your values, and you sure as hell haven't helped them to do so by going around demonstrating that you believe your enlightened political convictions give you a license to destroy and smash shit up. How is that not the same in every essential way as what often gets derisively called "lifestylism"?

Most people are not nihilists. You will never get a majority of people to agree with smashing stuff.

A communist/socialist isn't for the destruction of private property, (s)he is for its expropriation. Only a primitivist, or someone who is simply too immature in their anti-capitalist understanding to get what the alternative of socialism is, thinks that smashing department store windows accomplishes good.

Incendiarism's statement says it better and more succinctly than I am doing:

Those images show nothing but destruction

Socialists are for the creation of a new society built on workers' control and the absence of usury. Only people who think that the (temporary) taking of power and the creation of a new society are impossible would be for juvenile lashings-out at the existing society.

Charles Xavier

17th November 2008, 02:33

Maybe you should learn more about what is happening before you decide to weigh in on it. I've already described some of the positive benefits of the organizing, etc. Fuck off.
I just watched the Video you posted I don't know about the rest, if you don't want to make these vandals look bad why post a video that makes them look bad?

bcbm

17th November 2008, 08:18

I don't know about the restIts all explained in this thread.

f you don't want to make these vandals look bad why post a video that makes them look bad?

Well its from the mainstream media, what exactly do you expect? Do you have any measure of critical thought? Though I don't think it makes the anarchists look too terrible... it says they outsmarted and outmaneuvered the police and pretty much got away with it.

indirectly (by winning public/working class support for the anti-capitalist movement)Which is why major actions lead to huge gains for the movement? This has already been discussed in this thread.

Charles Xavier

17th November 2008, 14:49

Its all explained in this thread.

Well its from the mainstream media, what exactly do you expect? Do you have any measure of critical thought? Though I don't think it makes the anarchists look too terrible... it says they outsmarted and outmaneuvered the police and pretty much got away with it.

Which is why major actions lead to huge gains for the movement? This has already been discussed in this thread.
And historically when did vandalizing lead to huge support? If its the mainstream media that has biased reporting why don't you show your own stuff?

JimmyJazz

17th November 2008, 16:38

Which is why major actions lead to huge gains for the movement?

What movement? The black bloc movement? Great! :rolleyes:

I'm talking about the working class movement.

bcbm

17th November 2008, 17:15

And historically when did vandalizing lead to huge support?

Its a starting point for larger things. Working class people aren't afraid of broken windows and we're already seeing more people involved and active in organizing than in the pre-RNC period.

If its the mainstream media that has biased reporting why don't you show your own stuff?

We're not biased? There are a number of movement-made media projects, but they mostly focus on the police brutality. I thought the police admitting they had lost control was pretty interesting, so I shared it with others.

What movement? The black bloc movement? Great!

Go fuck yourself.

Charles Xavier

17th November 2008, 17:58

So the working class right now are too scared to break stuff mindlessly, breaking stuff on camera will show the workers that breaking stuff is okay? Well if you guys aren't biased why not show some unbiased camera footage of this black bloc inspiring the masses rather than breaking windows and news boxes? Because your biased news source made me think you guys are acting like hooligans.

bcbm

17th November 2008, 18:04

So the working class right now are too scared to break stuff mindlessly

Mindlessly? Targets were chosen for specific reasons and those have been articulated elsewhere.

breaking stuff on camera will show the workers that breaking stuff is okay?

Not what I was saying. I'm saying workers don't necessarily give a fuck about some broken windows, particularly on banks given all the foreclosures. And if, as you suggest, a few broken windows will scare them off then how do you think they'll take the idea of a violent revolution against the bourgeoisie? Hmm.

Once again, all the reasons as to why this was mostly a success have been explained elsewhere in this thread. I don't feel the need to repeat myself.

Well if you guys aren't biased why not show some unbiased camera footage of this black bloc inspiring the masses rather than breaking windows and news boxes?

What exactly would news footage of people "inspiring the masses" look like, and how is it mutually exclusive with some windows getting broken?

Because your biased news source made me think you guys are acting like hooligans.

Again, I've explained everything that needs to be explained in this thread. I'm sorry you either can't or refuse to comprehend it.

chegitz guevara

17th November 2008, 18:14

Anarchists took control, police ask for more money.

If the anarchists took control, why didn't the Twin Cities look like Seattle?

bcbm

17th November 2008, 19:12

If the anarchists took control, why didn't the Twin Cities look like Seattle?

Fewer people in the streets total and not as many interested in locking-down, etc probably because most of the older, more civil-disobedience oriented groups have faded since 2001, or newer organizers aren't in touch with them.

KurtFF8

17th November 2008, 19:34

chegitz guevara

17th November 2008, 19:39

Fewer people in the streets total and not as many interested in locking-down, etc probably because most of the older, more civil-disobedience oriented groups have faded since 2001, or newer organizers aren't in touch with them.

In other words, the anarchists didn't have control. I think it's a ploy by the police to get more money, more military style equipment, and more authority to disrupt political activism.

The Douche

17th November 2008, 19:47

In other words, the anarchists didn't have control. I think it's a ploy by the police to get more money, more military style equipment, and more authority to disrupt political activism.

An admission by the police that they lost control to anarchists is at least a propaganda victory for anarchists, even if it is a strategic victory for the police.

Well if you guys aren't biased why not show some unbiased camera footage of this black bloc inspiring the masses

Are you implying that the bloc tactic does not inspire masses of people? That is absurd. I know a lot of people who got very interested in anarchism after seeing videos of seattle and miami. I've also been there when black blocs have been cheered by crowds of thousands of liberals for standing up to the police. I seriously doubt you would be condeming the tactics of the black bloc if you had been un-arrestted thanks to one.

bcbm

17th November 2008, 19:48

I don't fully agree with Jimmy here. I don't think that this type of action is in itself lifestylism but instead is a result of lifestylism.

Except that building the network and level of organization it took for this to happen is the complete opposite of lifestylism.

The argument that "breaking shit" can lead to further action would have some more value in an already revolutionary situation. But in the current context of the left movement, it is still quite easy for actions like this to be painted as hooliganism and written off and discredited by the masses.

It can also draw more people in and inspire those already involved. Certainly many people on the streets during the RNC were radicalized. This strengthens our position and allows for much more solid action to occur that isn't just theater. It certainly isn't an end.

It requires significant amounts of people for actions like this to be seen as legitimate (e.g. WTO 1999) but even thought it was much harder for the media to paint those actions as "the angry left" (since it was the result of the police), when anarchists just go around breaking things, it seems quite counter-productive.

What? There were as many people, if not more, out "breaking things" during the RNC as during Seattle. Seattle was what it was because the police were caught off-guard and there were so many people locking down or otherwise blocking streets, to say nothing of the the unions helping out. "Anarchists going around breaking things" (among other things) saw the anti-capitalist movement generally and the anarchist movement specifically make huge gains for the first time in probably 40 years in this country.

In other words, the anarchists didn't have control.

They may not have had control (already said in this thread), but the strategy developed going into the first day was successful in splitting police resources effectively.

I think it's a ploy by the police to get more money, more military style equipment, and more authority to disrupt political activism.

The police will use any embarrassment on their part to do this, even if it has nothing to do with politics. The Ramsey County sheriff is trying to desperately save his own ass.

Os Cangaceiros

17th November 2008, 21:02

The first time I ever even encountered the word "anarchist" was when I was twelve years old, and turned on the TV to the WTO Seattle protests.

You can take from that what you will.

bcbm

17th November 2008, 21:12

Likewise. I saw it in school on some "News for Middle Schoolers" bullshit.

Dr. Rosenpenis

17th November 2008, 22:02

Dr. Rosenpenis

17th November 2008, 22:08

Yeah, you're missing the fact that many of those "kids" were pissed off working class youth.

That doesn't make wanton violence progressive

Dr. Rosenpenis

17th November 2008, 22:15

Mindlessly? Targets were chosen for specific reasons and those have been articulated elsewhere.

What goals did you expect to achieve from breaking windows?
Or were your goals limited to attacking that commercial or government establishment because you don't like them? That's lifestylism.

Nothing Human Is Alien

17th November 2008, 23:04

Go fuck yourself.

Please stop flaming.

chegitz guevara

17th November 2008, 23:49

YSR

18th November 2008, 02:17

That doesn't make wanton violence progressive

I wasn't talking about "wanton violence." Are you talking about violence from the protesters or from the cops? I'm really confused by this response.

This is kind f a waste of energy and resources. Imagine the power you'd have with real organization. You could have held that pig who didn't have backup hostage. You could actually have achieved real objectives.

Er, okay. But we don't, because the organized revolutionary movement is a tiny tiny minority in this country. If we were bigger and more organized, we could do lots of shit. But simply saying that doesn't make it a reality.

The RNC protests were actually explicitly framed by organizers as trying to get new people involved and grow our intramovement capabilities.

What goals did you expect to achieve from breaking windows?

Christ, what a boring cliche. A couple of windows were smashed, but I don't think that was anyone's (or at least anything besides a small fraction's) idea of praxis. I'm okay with that happening, but nobody really thought it was going to change anything. Lots of really great shit went down in the streets during the RNC, including innovative space occupation tactics (useful for holding space beyond just "protest" situations) and a tremendous growth in radical infrastructure in the Twin Cities specifically and the upper Midwest generally.

I'm always impressed with the ability of Leninists to take any massive action mostly planned by anarchists, read their biases into it, and conclude that it was a massive waste of time. Okay, chums, next time you get arrested for activity related to your movement (which hasn't happened since, what, 1956, when you stopped being relevant?) in my town, watch how the anarchist networks that formed for the RNC show up and help you out. Or when you get your ass kicked by the pigs, the anarchist health practitioners and medics that got trained for the RNC bandage your wounds. Or you need some hooligans to be the "stormtroopers" of your fucking Revolution(TM), call up the networks of affinity that can coordinate all sorts of actions.

Jesus! RevLeft is so full of revolutionaries but so empty of revolution.

thinkerOFthoughts

18th November 2008, 02:20

gkZvtGCh5YA

Maybe this is why they're trying so hard to send us all to jail for decades. :rolleyes:

ACAB.

Thats awesome.

Nothing Human Is Alien

18th November 2008, 03:08

Christ, what a boring cliche. A couple of windows were smashed, but I don't think that was anyone's (or at least anything besides a small fraction's) idea of praxis. I'm okay with that happening, but nobody really thought it was going to change anything. Lots of really great shit went down in the streets during the RNC, including innovative space occupation tactics (useful for holding space beyond just "protest" situations) and a tremendous growth in radical infrastructure in the Twin Cities specifically and the upper Midwest generally.

I'm always impressed with the ability of Leninists to take any massive action mostly planned by anarchists, read their biases into it, and conclude that it was a massive waste of time. Okay, chums, next time you get arrested for activity related to your movement (which hasn't happened since, what, 1956, when you stopped being relevant?) in my town, watch how the anarchist networks that formed for the RNC show up and help you out. Or when you get your ass kicked by the pigs, the anarchist health practitioners and medics that got trained for the RNC bandage your wounds. Or you need some hooligans to be the "stormtroopers" of your fucking Revolution(TM), call up the networks of affinity that can coordinate all sorts of actions.

Jesus! RevLeft is so full of revolutionaries but so empty of revolution.So in other words, anyone who carries out an action of any type under the anarchist banner is off limits to criticism?

I raised legitimate criticisms earlier in the thread. I am not a "Leninist."

One job of communist workers is to act as a sort of collective memory of our class. That's why I said what I said:

"It's certainly possible to run around and smash things up, blockade streets, etc., for a while. It's even possible to push the forces of repression out of an area and set up organs of rule (e.g. the St. Louis Commune, the Homestead Strike, Oaxaca, etc.) for a certain period. But if the tasks of extending the struggle, seizing the means of production, and smashing the capitalist state are not immediately set upon, and carried out successfully, then all you'll end up with a bunch of injured/murdered/arrested/tortured folks. This is a lesson that's been taught time and time again throughout history."

I also said the folks who carried out this action, while misguided, should still be defended.

You argue against what you falsely perceive as sectarianism while engaging in actual sectarianism at the same time.

Of course communists have faced repression "since 1956."

The sweeps on the Panthers were extensive and far reaching. Despite all their problems, the Panthers were an actual organized threat to the rule of capitalism. They didn't 'develop new tactics for temporarily holding spaces,' they organized with the goal of seizing power.

That's one case among many.

The Douche

18th November 2008, 03:25

This is kind f a waste of energy and resources. Imagine the power you'd have with real organization. You could have held that pig who didn't have backup hostage. You could actually have achieved real objectives.

Is this a joke? If such an organization existed with the strength necessary to capture a police officer I would say that the energy of such a organization would be put toward something slightly more revolutionary.

The sweeps on the Panthers were extensive and far reaching. Despite all their problems, the Panthers were an actual organized threat to the rule of capitalism. They didn't 'develop new tactics for temporarily holding spaces,' they organized with the goal of seizing power.

Were the panthers wasting time and energy when they surrounded police officer arrestting black people and took up tactical positions around them with firearms? What about when such actions got them arrestted? It seems to me that had you been around then you would have called that a waste as well. Just what should we be doing instead? And what is it that you, or any other leninist organization has done that has even come close to rivaling the progress made by the anarchist movement in the US or the western world in general?

ashaman1324

18th November 2008, 03:32

lol...
the anarchists had control.:D:D:D
but seriously, i support this protest.
while general vandalism is unproductive for the most part, i think it showed how pissed off the protesters were pretty well.

Nothing Human Is Alien

18th November 2008, 03:39

Were the panthers wasting time and energy when they surrounded police officer arrestting black people and took up tactical positions around them with firearms? What about when such actions got them arrestted? It seems to me that had you been around then you would have called that a waste as well.

That's not a good comparison. The Panthers carried out operations to defend folks who were being targeted for being Black. What happened in St. Paul is more like the "Days of Rage" by the Weathermen, which the Black Panthers roundly condemned.

Just what should we be doing instead?

Organizing, educating, agitating. Building a global workers party. And since our politics must start with the world: Helping to build and lead mass organizations in the imperialist and imperialist-partner countries that struggle for workers' rule and control of production, and liberation fronts in the imperialist-oppressed countries that can knock the legs out from under imperialism and bring about world crises that revolutionaries can act on.

Sometimes this kind of work seems long and arduous, and to a certain extent it is, but it lays the groundwork for real victories to be made when the time comes.

It's not fun, but it's necessary.

And what is it that you, or any other leninist organization has done that has even come close to rivaling the progress made by the anarchist movement in the US or the western world in general?

I'm not in a "Leninist" organization, nor is the work of my organization limited to "the Western World."

I'm also not interested in a pissing contest. I could point to places in which thoroughgoing revolutions have been carried out under the leadership of "Leninists," but we're talking about a specific incident in St. Paul, Minnesota right now.

which doctor

18th November 2008, 03:42

In the video, what were the cops spraying out of that red canister? Pepper spray or something?

Nothing Human Is Alien

18th November 2008, 03:48

That's what it looks like.

Sometimes they spray invisible ink to identify people later, but I don't think that was the case here.

JimmyJazz

18th November 2008, 03:54

I don't fully agree with Jimmy here. I don't think that this type of action is in itself lifestylism but instead is a result of lifestylism.

The argument that "breaking shit" can lead to further action would have some more value in an already revolutionary situation. But in the current context of the left movement, it is still quite easy for actions like this to be painted as hooliganism and written off and discredited by the masses. It requires significant amounts of people for actions like this to be seen as legitimate (e.g. WTO 1999) but even thought it was much harder for the media to paint those actions as "the angry left" (since it was the result of the police), when anarchists just go around breaking things, it seems quite counter-productive.

You know, I think Seattle was probably a good thing on balance. So in that regard, maybe my earlier argument in this thread was too strong. (At the same time, I do realize it's easy for someone who talks to a lot of other radicals to get a very inflated view of the actual good it did and to be totally blind to how the public at large perceived it).

However, Seattle wasn't just anarchists breaking shit. It was a mass demonstration that included lots of peaceful blue collar union people, and also a small number of anarchists breaking shit. So you can debate whether the anarchists gave legitimate expression to the anger of the huge crowd or whether they simply diverted attention from the message. I've read both viewpoints from people who were actually there.

In other words, the anarchists didn't have control. I think it's a ploy by the police to get more money, more military style equipment, and more authority to disrupt political activism.

And it's already working:

The brother of a friend of mine has been involved in setting up the L.A. Anarchist Bookfair. As they were getting ready the other day (I think it was the last day before the fair, or the first day of it), sixteen police cars pulled up and claimed that a local shopkeeper had been shoplifted from by one of the anarchist organizers. So they forced the organizers to empty out of the building, made them all (there were dozens of them) stand in an impromptu line-up, and then forced them to disperse (the real point of the whole thing) after taking away the guy they claimed had been a shoplifter. They made them all wait outside as two at a time went back in the building to collect their stuff before leaving.

Of course we can't be certain, but it seems likely that the RNC takeover/riot was on the minds of the LAPD when they planned this shit.

As a final aside, regarding the video in the OP: I'd be 100x more supportive of these anarchists if they had the gonads to show their faces and go to jail for this stuff. I for one would join as many marches as it took to get them out, as would most socialist organizations. Now that might be the start of a mass movement. If you have no risk of getting caught, what have you really proved about the strength of the political convictions behind your violence? Not too much...

YSR

18th November 2008, 04:35

Okay, I'm really frustrated with this conversation because, except for BCBM and myself, I don't know anyone on RevLeft who was part of these protests. I spent months organizing for them and am now dealing with a community that's increasingly targeted by police violence after the protests. So I'm a little mad at some people's responses but don't have time to respond to all of them. Forgive me if I get a little snippy. The fact is that none of you know or apparently understand what happened in St. Paul, where it came from, and the context in which these things occurred.

The sweeps on the Panthers were extensive and far reaching. Despite all their problems, the Panthers were an actual organized threat to the rule of capitalism. They didn't 'develop new tactics for temporarily holding spaces,' they organized with the goal of seizing power.

Of course, you're right. We're not an organized threat yet. But we don't want to seize power, we want to destroy it. I also think that the Panthers goal of seizing power was flawed and that helped hasten their downfall. But this is an ideological concern that's fundamental to the Marxism vs. anarchism debate and isn't necessarily relevant here.

You argue against what you falsely perceive as sectarianism while engaging in actual sectarianism at the same time.

I'm not arguing against sectarianism, just pointing out that it is blinding people. I'm sectarian, no doubt. But it'd be nice if we could get beyond our narrow conceptions of politics in order to actually understand what's going on sometimes.

What happened in St. Paul is more like the "Days of Rage" by the Weathermen, which the Black Panthers roundly condemned.

No offense, but bullshit. While I love workers fighting with cops as much as the next guy, that's not what happened at the RNC. There was one incident of violence towards cops, which you saw in the video. Yes, it ruled, but it was isolated. The vast majority of protesters, anarchists included, were not out smashing windows. That's the plain truth, despite what the corporate media is saying.

Organizing, educating, agitating.

Fuck yeah. What do you think the RNC was? A culmination of years of organizing. It brought in communities who had never before been involved in protests, it created a radical defense infrastructure, it developed networks of affinity for radicals across the Midwest and the country, it built historic ties between anarchists and the Left, it exposed the brutality of the state to a wide variety of people who had either never seen that or never seen it articulated in this way. In these ways, the RNC protests were a complete success.

No one ever really expected to close them down, but that wasn't the point. The point was that we knew folks were gonna come to the RNC, so why not use it as a moment to agitate and organize them?

Sometimes this kind of work seems long and arduous, and to a certain extent it is, but it lays the groundwork for real victories to be made when the time comes.

Come off it. Did you think this thing just magically happened, or that the RNC protests were the only things that organizers are doing? Couldn't be further from the truth. All the RNC organizers I know, and in fact all the protesters I met when they were here, were engaged in multiple grassroots and radical projects. The RNC was a great moment to link those struggles, at least symbolically, and to make contacts and solidarities across all kinds of geographic and cultural backgrounds.

In the video, what were the cops spraying out of that red canister? Pepper spray or something?

Yeah. Hurts like a motherfucker.

I'd be 100x more supportive of these anarchists if they had the gonads to show their faces and go to jail for this stuff.

Err, why do you think Fidel spent so much time in the mountains? 'Cause he didn't have the "gonads" to hang around in Habana? Please.

The more disturbing thing, from the perspective of social movements, is that those who are being most persecuted are the RNC8, a group of organizers from the anarchist RNC Welcoming Committee, who weren't even involved in the actual protests. They weren't downtown on Sept 1, 'cause they were all in jail by then. Also Dave Mahoney, who is being charged with terrorism enhanced charges for pointing at someone. More info on both cases at Twin Cities Indymedia (http://tc.indymedia.org/). Make sure you check out [/URL][URL="http://www.terrorizingdissent.org"]Terrorizing Dissent (http://www.terrorizingdissent.com) while you're there. Great documentary about the repression of the protests.

The Douche

18th November 2008, 04:41

As a final aside, regarding the video in the OP: I'd be 100x more supportive of these anarchists if they had the gonads to show their faces and go to jail for this stuff. I for one would join as many marches as it took to get them out, as would most socialist organizations. Now that might be the start of a mass movement. If you have no risk of getting caught, what have you really proved about the strength of the political convictions behind your violence? Not too much...

Don't fetishize getting locked up. There is nothing glorious about it. And I don't care how many socialists picket in front of the police station, it won't get me out any sooner. It might give me a moral boost (and thats good) but no, I don't think it would spark a mass movement either. I've gone from the street to the precinct house where arrestted anarchists were being held, I didn't see anybody but other black blocers out there with me.

That's not a good comparison. The Panthers carried out operations to defend folks who were being targeted for being Black. What happened in St. Paul is more like the "Days of Rage" by the Weathermen, which the Black Panthers roundly condemned.

So you don't see anything positive about attacking the institutions which opress us, even if its in a dramaturgical light? You do realise that much of what the panthers did was just posturing right? When they stood on the steps of the courthouse with shotguns it wasn't cause they thought the cops would be scared, it was cause they thought the people would be inspired, and I know a lot of people who would smile if they saw a bank get smashed up.

Organizing, educating, agitating. Building a global workers party. And since our politics must start with the world: Helping to build and lead mass organizations in the imperialist and imperialist-partner countries that struggle for workers' rule and control of production, and liberation fronts in the imperialist-oppressed countries that can knock the legs out from under imperialism and bring about world crises that revolutionaries can act on.

Sometimes this kind of work seems long and arduous, and to a certain extent it is, but it lays the groundwork for real victories to be made when the time comes.

It's not fun, but it's necessary.

And I think you know full well that anarchists participate in all these activities. (though obviously not party building)

I'm not in a "Leninist" organization, nor is the work of my organization limited to "the Western World."

Fine, statist organization then. Its great that you're not limited to the western world nor are the organizations I have been involved in, but I am asking what has the statist left done in the US since the panthers? And how does that stack up against the anarchist left, which you seem to be arguing, does nothing but fuck shit up?

JimmyJazz

18th November 2008, 04:43

@YSR: Not really getting the Fidel analogy, but nor have I ever stated my support for guerillaism.

Anyway I wasn't suggesting that leftists must intentionally get themselves thrown into jail. I'm just stating a simple fact that to do so proves something about their convictions. Whereas what the the black bloc-ers are doing really doesn't prove that. To a neutral observer black bloc-ing doesn't look like it carries much risk for the individual participant, and it even looks like something you might do to relieve boredom (hence the charges of "hooliganism", etc.; no one ever accused Alice Paul or Bobby Sands of "hooliganism" when they were hunger-striking in prison for their political beliefs, because it wouldn't have made sense). Maybe proving the depth of their convictions to the world isn't the black bloc-ers intent, although if not, I wonder what is.

YSR

18th November 2008, 05:11

Nothing Human Is Alien

18th November 2008, 05:12

The vast majority of protesters, anarchists included, were not out smashing windows.

Right, and I was already aware of that.

My point is that the actions of the 'window smashing minority' (which is what I was criticizing) have given the state an excuse to attack everybody involved, including 'the vast majority.' It's not that the state needed this excuse, of course, its that it was given to them.. without any benefit to the working class or progress made towards overthrowing capitalism.

Err, why do you think Fidel spent so much time in the mountains? 'Cause he didn't have the "gonads" to hang around in Habana? Please.

Not that I'm interested in this particular argument, but it was well known that Fidel was the leader of the 26 July Movement. He never hid his identity.

Don't fetishize getting locked up. There is nothing glorious about it. And I don't care how many socialists picket in front of the police station, it won't get me out any sooner.

You're right. It takes a sustained, mass working class movement to do that, such as the one that freed Fidel, Raul and the others after they were arrested for the attack on Moncada.

So you don't see anything positive about attacking the institutions which opress us, even if its in a dramaturgical light? You do realise that much of what the panthers did was just posturing right? When they stood on the steps of the courthouse with shotguns it wasn't cause they thought the cops would be scared, it was cause they thought the people would be inspired, and I know a lot of people who would smile if they saw a bank get smashed up.

Your changing your argument now.

My point was that what the Panthers did and this even don't have a lot in common.

"We do not support people who are anarchistic, opportunistic, adventuristic, and Custeristic." - Fred Hampton

And no, I don't think any value that comes from this sort of action (if indeed any comes at all) outweighs the risks (e.g. hundreds of arrests, tying up of comrades and resources in legal battles, etc.).

I've gone from the street to the precinct house where arrestted anarchists were being held, I didn't see anybody but other black blocers out there with me.

Doesn't that tell you something, i.e. that the "black blockers" don't lack organic links and support of/with an organized working class?

While I love workers fighting with cops as much as the next guy, that's not what happened at the RNC.

It's not what happened at the Days of Rage either.

But anyway, it's obvious this event didn't have the impact or reach of the Days of Rage, I was simply stating that it was much more similar to the DoR (a planned-ahead, organized action which included property damage) than moves by the Panthers to free Black folks targeted by the police, as another comrade was arguing.

I am asking what has the statist left done in the US since the panthers? And how does that stack up against the anarchist left, which you seem to be arguing, does nothing but fuck shit up?

I criticized a single action. I didn't argue that the "anarchist left" only "fucks shit up." First of all, there is no homogeneous "anarchist left." Second, there isn't much of an "anarchist left" to speak of.

You already know the answer to the question you asked. No one has accomplished much of anything in the U.S. since the days of the Panthers. Some parties expanded their membership, newspaper readerships, and/or influence in the upsurge of struggles (e.g. in the coal mines, meatpacking plants, etc.) in the 70's and 80's, but that's about it.

I think this is a result of both material conditions and bad politics, strategy and tactics (which includes the abandoning of class politics by much of the left). Clearly the 1974 and 1981 recessions and the above mentioned struggles were great opportunities that no one was successfully able to take advantage of. The 90's were polluted with the "death of communism" nonsense, but still gave opportunities (invasion of Iraq, free trade agreements, etc.).

Like I said before, I'm not interested in a pissing contest on this question. It's pretty clear that both camps come up short.

bcbm

18th November 2008, 08:18

Please stop flaming.

I'll give it my best, but I don't have much tolerance for people who tell me that shit me and my comrades are risking decades in jail for was "lifestylism" and other bullshit of that sort. We can disagree tactically but I find some of the shit that individual was/is saying pretty offensive in this situation.

I'd be 100x more supportive of these anarchists if they had the gonads to show their faces and go to jail for this stuff.

Yeah, not accepting bullshit terrorism charges and dealing with a justice system that is firmly in the hands of our class enemies shows the anarchists are just a bunch of pussies, right? We should all be ready to own up to everything and get sent to jail for two or three decades. How brave, how useful.

I'm way too fucking drunk and pissed to respond to most of this, so... more later.

bcbm

18th November 2008, 14:55

Not much to say, YSR has been hitting the nail on the head.

And no, I don't think any value that comes from this sort of action (if indeed any comes at all) outweighs the risks (e.g. hundreds of arrests, tying up of comrades and resources in legal battles, etc.).

Generally the "risk" for these sort of protests is minimal and in the long run the movement often makes money out of it from lawsuits, etc. The police and feds upped the ante considerably here and that will inform our tactics in the future. We've already been making a shift in terms of tactics and projects within various networks.

chegitz guevara

18th November 2008, 16:09

I'll give it my best, but I don't have much tolerance for people who tell me that shit me and my comrades are risking decades in jail for was "lifestylism" and other bullshit of that sort. We can disagree tactically but I find some of the shit that individual was/is saying pretty offensive in this situation.

I think Nothing Human Is Alien (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=9814) gets it right on this question. Engaging in such tactics invites the crack down that the anarchists are now dealing with, and ties up your money and time in court dealing with this shit. What was the result. Just as previous actions invited the crack down the MPD engaged in before the protests. Shit, I got jammed up by the cops for being near a protest where there were anarchists and I just happened to be all dressed in black (never a good idea in South Florida in the summer in any event) after having just got off a plane from my grandmother's funeral only an hour earlier.

Dr. Rosenpenis

18th November 2008, 16:27

I wasn't talking about "wanton violence." Are you talking about violence from the protesters or from the cops? I'm really confused by this response.

Obviously police violence isn't progressive. I'm wondering why the anarchists used vandalism to occupy the streets. It seems pretty meaningless, like what's his face said.

Er, okay. But we don't, because the organized revolutionary movement is a tiny tiny minority in this country. If we were bigger and more organized, we could do lots of shit. But simply saying that doesn't make it a reality.

The pigs were outnumbered and unprepared. If you guys had more concrete tactics and more coherent objectives, you maybe could have achieved something substantial in this particular circumstance, don't you think so?

The RNC protests were actually explicitly framed by organizers as trying to get new people involved and grow our intramovement capabilities.

And you do this by vandalizing your town, damaging public property and physically harassing pigs? Are workers supposed to be inspired to join your struggle by this? Is this the kind of action that you think represents the interest of workers? Frankly, I'm not surprised the anarchist movement out there is tiny. Who in their right mind would want to join?

Christ, what a boring cliche. A couple of windows were smashed, but I don't think that was anyone's (or at least anything besides a small fraction's) idea of praxis. I'm okay with that happening, but nobody really thought it was going to change anything.

Then why is it okay? Is the only thing preventing "revolutionaries" from running out into the street and destroying everything the threat of legal repercussion?

bcbm

18th November 2008, 16:52

I think Nothing Human Is Alien (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=9814) gets it right on this question. Engaging in such tactics invites the crack down that the anarchists are now dealing with, and ties up your money and time in court dealing with this shit.

How many fucking times do I have to repeat myself? For fuck's sake my response to this is RIGHT ABOVE YOUR POST.

"Generally the "risk" for these sort of protests is minimal and in the long run the movement often makes money out of it from lawsuits, etc. The police and feds upped the ante considerably here and that will inform our tactics in the future."

In the past engaging in "such tactics" wasn't really a big deal. There was a bit of tit-for-tat and everybody went home basically status quo, or maybe trying to sue the police. Now that has changed and it caught us off-guard. Sorry we aren't psychic but based on past experiences there was no reason to expect we'd have people facing decades in jail.

Beyond that, the second we say "We're anarchists, we're against the government and capitalism and plan to organize for their destruction" we've invited a crackdown.

Just as previous actions invited the crack down the MPD engaged in before the protests.

What previous actions are you referring to here?

Shit, I got jammed up by the cops for being near a protest where there were anarchists and I just happened to be all dressed in black (never a good idea in South Florida in the summer in any event) after having just got off a plane from my grandmother's funeral only an hour earlier.

The government has infiltrators in anti-war baking societies made up of grannies, but yeah, its all our fault the pigs crack down on dissent.

I'm wondering why the anarchists used vandalism to occupy the streets.

The vandalism occurred in one area and was a small part of what happened that day. All over the city the streets were occupied by mobile groups, lock downs, barricades, disabled cars and even dance parties.

The pigs were outnumbered and unprepared. If you guys had more concrete tactics and more coherent objectives, you maybe could have achieved something substantial in this particular circumstance, don't you think so?

There were concrete tactics and coherent objectives. We were trying to block the delegates. Do you know what happened in St. Paul at all beyond some sensationalist media reports? The pigs were outnumbered by the liberal march maybe, but not by us. It was maybe close to even, at best. They were unprepared, but they did manage to steal some equipment that would've helped from various groups and managed to deal with some of the blockades pretty quickly.

And you do this by vandalizing your town, damaging public property and physically harassing pigs? Are workers supposed to be inspired to join your struggle by this? Is this the kind of action that you think represents the interest of workers? Frankly, I'm not surprised the anarchist movement out there is tiny. Who in their right mind would want to join?

Its as big as any other movement on the left and has seen a great deal of growth since the RNC, not to mention more organizing. Same thing happened after Seattle.

JimmyJazz

18th November 2008, 19:33

To a neutral observer black bloc-ing doesn't look like it carries much risk for the individual participant

Look, I'm no supporter of the black bloc, I think it's outdated and ineffective. But DUH, that's the idea.

Which is (duh) why I brought it up in a discussion of whether black bloc-ing is a good or productive idea/tactic.

Dr. Rosenpenis

18th November 2008, 19:38

Well, you failed to address my point, but so be it.

Why were you trying to block the delegates? How is the sabotage of the RNC a part of your platform for change? What does it achieve? I don't get it.

Are you honestly suggesting that the anarchist movement that manifested itself in St. Paul is as big as any other leftist movement? Is that a fucking joke? There are more active leftists in my university than in the entire midwest probably.

bcbm

18th November 2008, 19:39

Well, you failed to address my point, but so be it.

That being?

Are you honestly suggesting that the anarchist movement that manifested itself in St. Paul is as big as any other leftist movement? Is that a fucking joke? There are more active leftists in my university than in the entire midwest probably.

I meant in the US, obviously. :rolleyes:

Dr. Rosenpenis

18th November 2008, 20:17

That being?

The anarchist movement that organized this demonstration is out of touch with workers and their interests, which are not a part of your platform and are not pursued by your actions.

I meant in the US, obviously. :rolleyes:

Then maybe next time you should word your posts more accurately

freakazoid

18th November 2008, 20:48

The argument that "breaking shit" can lead to further action would have some more value in an already revolutionary situation. But in the current context of the left movement, it is still quite easy for actions like this to be painted as hooliganism and written off and discredited by the masses.

No matter what we do we will be branded as hooligans no matter what, doesn't matter if we smash things or simply hold hands and sing Give Peace a Chance. Or we will simply be ignored to where no one in the country knows that there even was a protest besides the ones in it, which is what I think happened for the most part. Also I remember reading somewhere here that Marx went around breaking streetlamp lights. :lol:

Or when you get your ass kicked by the pigs, the anarchist health practitioners and medics that got trained for the RNC bandage your wounds. Or you need some hooligans to be the "stormtroopers" of your fucking Revolution(TM), call up the networks of affinity that can coordinate all sorts of actions.

Hear hear. I would rather have a "lifestylist" black blocer beside me who I know will help defend my ass if some pig tries to grab me, like was shown in the video, than a bunch of hippies who sit there singing while they are slowly being taken away one by one with no resistance, I remember seeing a video of this happening at some protest and I was like You dumbasses get up and punch the pig in the face :cursing:

Engaging in such tactics invites the crack down that the anarchists are now dealing with, and ties up your money and time in court dealing with this shit. What was the result. Just as previous actions invited the crack down the MPD engaged in before the protests. Shit, I got jammed up by the cops for being near a protest where there were anarchists and I just happened to be all dressed in black (never a good idea in South Florida in the summer in any event) after having just got off a plane from my grandmother's funeral only an hour earlier.

Well in that case we should never do anything because no matter what we, the left, do that will happen.

It seems like most of you people think that this is ALL that we do to protest, ignoring all of the other types of organizing. It's like you guys think that there is only ONE way to do things instead of there being many equally important way.

chegitz guevara

18th November 2008, 21:01

Also I remember reading somewhere here that Marx went around breaking streetlamp lights. :lol:

Yeah, but he was drunk and didn't claim he was furthering the revolution by doing so.

bcbm

18th November 2008, 21:22

The anarchist movement that organized this demonstration is out of touch with workers and their interests, which are not a part of your platform and are not pursued by your actions.

Shutting down the convention of a bourgeois party would be a pretty big propaganda blow. Beyond that, like I said, this was viewed as a starting point for putting some energy back into our movement here as we'd been reeling for post-2001 defeats for awhile. It was successful in that regard and now we're working on a number of projects that are certainly "in touch with workers and their interests."

Then maybe next time you should word your posts more accurately

The two examples I used being US specific seem like pretty much a dead giveaway to me. Maybe you should trying thinking a bit harder if the sentence doesn't seem to immediately make sense.

Yeah, but he was drunk and didn't claim he was furthering the revolution by doing so.

Nobody claimed they were furthering the revolution. The most that has been claimed was that it was an attempt to jumpstart the anarchist movement.

Dr. Rosenpenis

19th November 2008, 00:34

So you did this to draw attention to yourselves... fair enough.

I would avoid doing too many things like this just to draw attention to your movement, because then you'll just be plain obnoxious and a big nuisance. You guys obviously need clearer goals. What propaganda would that strike a blow against? Why would you want to attack that propaganda, exactly? If you're done getting the attention you need, try planning actions that result or can result in real gains for the members of your movement, if you guys even have political goals other than getting media attention.

bcbm

19th November 2008, 00:43

Thanks for the tips, but we're on it and have some good projects in the works.

You guys obviously need clearer goals. What propaganda would that strike a blow against? Why would you want to attack that propaganda, exactly?

Propaganda blow means it would've been propaganda against them.

if you guys even have political goals other than getting media attention.

Oh fuck off.

Charles Xavier

19th November 2008, 02:25

Thanks for the tips, but we're on it and have some good projects in the works.

Propaganda blow means it would've been propaganda against them.

Oh fuck off.
Nice argument, can't explain something you tell people to fuck off. If I acted like a jerk and been an anarchist on this board, I could get away with this stuff like this guy does? I wonder how well a state I had been in if not only acting up against the Anarchists, I told them to fuck off to boot. In fact I got a final warning and if I acted up again I would get banned.

Can we stop the uncomradely behaviour and stick to real politics? So far this guy has shown a video and tells us to either support the vandalism or we are pussies. That working people need to be inspired by vandalism before they will revolt! And they need to be shown this on TV! Because they dare not show biased footage favouring the Anarchists because that would be propaganda!!!! That the black bloc are justified in vandalism stuff because they help out people who the cops try to nab at protests. This is nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul.

When someone calls him out on this, he tells them to fuck off. This isn't the first time in this thread this is the 3rd or 4th.

KurtFF8

19th November 2008, 03:43

freakazoid

19th November 2008, 05:48

ice argument, can't explain something you tell people to fuck off.

He was right in telling him to fuck off. He has completely ignored everything written and just continues to argue from ignorance in thinking that there are no political goals.

Can we stop the uncomradely behaviour and stick to real politics? So far this guy has shown a video and tells us to either support the vandalism or we are pussies. That working people need to be inspired by vandalism before they will revolt! And they need to be shown this on TV! Because they dare not show biased footage favouring the Anarchists because that would be propaganda!!!! That the black bloc are justified in vandalism stuff because they help out people who the cops try to nab at protests. This is nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Did it hurt pulling that out of your ass?

bcbm

19th November 2008, 08:37

Nice argument, can't explain something you tell people to fuck off.

What exactly is there to explain in response to the sentence "or do you have any other goals besides media attention" or whatever bullshit he said? I've explained here and elsewhere quite concretely what our goals are. That comment was a bullshit jab and I responded accordingly. You're just as guilty of that, ignoring the actual arguments being presented and picking and choosing some bullshit to make a smart remark. If you're not willing to engage in a reasonable debate, I'm not going to bother returning the favor. It isn't worth my time.

If I acted like a jerk and been an anarchist on this board, I could get away with this stuff like this guy does? I wonder how well a state I had been in if not only acting up against the Anarchists, I told them to fuck off to boot. In fact I got a final warning and if I acted up again I would get banned.

BAAWWWWW go cry to somebody who gives a shit. I was warned verbally once though I responded that I would respond to stupid flames with stupid flames. Notice I actually responded to the real arguments? No, you're probably too busy cherry picking to try and score points.

Can we stop the uncomradely behaviour and stick to real politics?

Yeah, go ahead. You can start. I've dealt with the real politics here and said "fuck off" to the BS.

So far this guy has shown a video and tells us to either support the vandalism or we are pussies.

Really? I don't recall telling anyone to "support anything or else...," just arguing my perspective on what happened in the twin cities. I disagreed with those who said it was worthless, but I didn't just throw flames. Once again, cherry picking... as if the fact that you respond to the one post I say "fuck off" in out of all the previous ones where I made arguments. Hmm.

That working people need to be inspired by vandalism before they will revolt!

Also not at all what I said. Do you have any response to the actual points be raised, or do you just want to continue your pattern of pulling bullshit out of nowhere and being a dick?

When someone calls him out on this, he tells them to fuck off. This isn't the first time in this thread this is the 3rd or 4th.

Yeah, the long and detailed responses to criticism in this thread were just elaborate "fuck offs," right? You're so full of shit.

freakazoid

19th November 2008, 09:22

Are there any good sites that explain everything that happened. Everything like cops and protesters movements, who did what, how they responded to each other, what things were used, and stuff like that? Also vids of what happened.

:)

apathy maybe

19th November 2008, 09:54

The Feral Underclass

19th November 2008, 10:57

Nice argument, can't explain something you tell people to fuck off.

Explain what exactly? That we do have political goals and we're not just out for media attention? Why should any self respecting anarchist entertain such an obviously ignorant question?

Charles Xavier

19th November 2008, 16:10

He was right in telling him to fuck off. He has completely ignored everything written and just continues to argue from ignorance in thinking that there are no political goals.

Did it hurt pulling that out of your ass?

What was the political goal?
And look another flame! Nice how you can ignore a legitimate argument by flaming it.

Explain what exactly? That we do have political goals and we're not just out for media attention? Why should any self respecting anarchist entertain such an obviously ignorant question?

If its such an ignorant question why hasn't it been answered yet? So excuse my ignorance, what was the political goal rather than breaking stuff and grabbing media attention? I am sure it wasn't but if its so easy to explain then explain it don't spend several hours not explaining something which is so easy to explain.

What exactly is there to explain in response to the sentence "or do you have any other goals besides media attention" or whatever bullshit he said? I've explained here and elsewhere quite concretely what our goals are. That comment was a bullshit jab and I responded accordingly. You're just as guilty of that, ignoring the actual arguments being presented and picking and choosing some bullshit to make a smart remark. If you're not willing to engage in a reasonable debate, I'm not going to bother returning the favor. It isn't worth my time.

BAAWWWWW go cry to somebody who gives a shit. I was warned verbally once though I responded that I would respond to stupid flames with stupid flames. Notice I actually responded to the real arguments? No, you're probably too busy cherry picking to try and score points.

Yeah, go ahead. You can start. I've dealt with the real politics here and said "fuck off" to the BS.

Really? I don't recall telling anyone to "support anything or else...," just arguing my perspective on what happened in the twin cities. I disagreed with those who said it was worthless, but I didn't just throw flames. Once again, cherry picking... as if the fact that you respond to the one post I say "fuck off" in out of all the previous ones where I made arguments. Hmm.

Also not at all what I said. Do you have any response to the actual points be raised, or do you just want to continue your pattern of pulling bullshit out of nowhere and being a dick?

Yeah, the long and detailed responses to criticism in this thread were just elaborate "fuck offs," right? You're so full of shit.

Why can't we have a civil argument on politics instead of resorting to personal attacks or flaming? I mean if I responded to your posts the same way you responded to mine I would be kicked out of this forum. Funny how you can get away with stuff at the same time raise all hell against me for doing the exact same thing. Hypocritic oath? I raised some questions, you ignore the questions and start doing personal attacks. I'm ignorant forgive me but what was the political goal of this black bloc? It isn't a good way to explain Anarchism by calling people idiots for not understanding such a basic question which isn't even worth your time.

In fact, I just got a Private message in my reputation from BCBM telling me to fuck off which I am sure is perfectly acceptable? ... maybe I should start doing the same. I wonder how well I will be treated. Should I be worried? Double standards don't exist here right?

I am raising a question several times over looked and several times flamed. And I can almost guarantee I won't get my answer I will be called a whiner and told to fuck off like everyone else.

apathy maybe

19th November 2008, 16:48

@GeorgiDimitrovII Actually, what with having negative rep, I'm not sure that you would be even allowed to give other people rep.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1286745&postcount=26
This post has the following nonsensical question

I just watched the Video you posted I don't know about the rest, if you don't want to make these vandals look bad why post a video that makes them look bad?
Which was answered without any insults.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1287137&postcount=28

And historically when did vandalizing lead to huge support? If its the mainstream media that has biased reporting why don't you show your own stuff?
Which was also answered without insults.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1287281&postcount=31

So the working class right now are too scared to break stuff mindlessly, breaking stuff on camera will show the workers that breaking stuff is okay? Well if you guys aren't biased why not show some unbiased camera footage of this black bloc inspiring the masses rather than breaking windows and news boxes? Because your biased news source made me think you guys are acting like hooligans.
No swearing in the answer to this one, and the insults are basically non existent too...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1288583&postcount=74
This post has no questions

In the post above, you ask:

ignorant forgive me but what was the political goal of this black bloc? It isn't a good way to explain Anarchism by calling people idiots for not understanding such a basic question which isn't even worth your time.
I would suggest that the "Black Bloc" didn't have a political goal as such (from what I understand of the responses given so far), but instead, individuals were trying to block the conference, and raise the profile of the "movement". (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.)

As far as I can tell, you're whining even though no one insulted you in this thread until after you made a stupid fucking post.

I suggest you go back and read everything that BCBM and YSR wrote, and then come back and say your "question" wasn't answered (if in fact it wasn't).

bcbm

19th November 2008, 17:00

What was the political goal?
If its such an ignorant question why hasn't it been answered yet? So excuse my ignorance, what was the political goal rather than breaking stuff and grabbing media attention? I am sure it wasn't but if its so easy to explain then explain it don't spend several hours not explaining something which is so easy to explain.You could try reading the thread. This was answered pages ago.:rolleyes:

Why can't we have a civil argument on politics instead of resorting to personal attacks or flaming?I've been having a civil argument on politics with people who approach me on that level. You don't. Almost every post you make in any thread pertaining to anarchists, including this one, is purposefully ignorant, insulting or trollish. Why should I bother with that shit? Even when I do bother to respond to you in a reasonable manner you'll continue to be patronizing, go away for awhile, then stumble back in a couple of pages later crying about me telling someone to fuck off, ignoring the two pages of good discussion that proceeded it. Like I said previously, you're cherry picking.

I mean if I responded to your posts the same way you responded to mine I would be kicked out of this forum. Funny how you can get away with stuff at the same time raise all hell against me for doing the exact same thing.Where did I raise all hell about you? I find you annoying, but not enough to truly give a shit about. And I'm not doing the same shit as you- I'm actually making points and having discussions with people and occasionally telling people being assholes to fuck off. I'm not just bumbling into every thread related to some group I dislike and being a moron.

I raised some questions, you ignore the questions and start doing personal attacks.Every question you have asked has been answered in this thread by me or YSR.

I'm ignorant forgive me but what was the political goal of this black bloc?I can't speak specifically to that bloc as I was in a completely different part of the city when it occurred and have no idea who organized it. I would guess they wanted to engage in vandalism to try and make the situation in downtown chaotic enough that delegates could not be brought in. Probably also strike back against the pigs for their pre-RNC harassment and bring some energy back to the movement and give us a new "victory" as we'd been on a string of defeats with 2001, Miami and the Green Scare stuff. Other anarchists groups operating in the downtown area were trying to block delegates through other means and to shut down or significantly disrupt the convention, or at least draw attention from it.

It isn't a good way to explain Anarchism by calling people idiots for not understanding such a basic question which isn't even worth your time.Such a basic question has been answered. Repeatedly.

In fact, I just got a Private message in my reputation from BCBM telling me to fuck off which I am sure is perfectly acceptable? ... maybe I should start doing the same. I wonder how well I will be treated. Should I be worried? Double standards don't exist here right?Oh noes, conspiracy! Protip: there's a "Report Post" button in the corner of every post.

I am raising a question several times over looked and several times flamed. And I can almost guarantee I won't get my answer I will be called a whiner and told to fuck off like everyone else.Maybe it is because you raised your question in completely tactless and patronizing way and clearly don't read the thread because your question has been answered.

freakazoid

20th November 2008, 07:27

And look another flame! Nice how you can ignore a legitimate argument by flaming it.

Pretty much what apathy maybe and bcbm said, it is you who is ignoring the answers that are given time and time again.

The Feral Underclass

20th November 2008, 09:17

If its such an ignorant question why hasn't it been answered yet?

That's a self fulfilling question. It doesn't deserve an answer.

Why can't we have a civil argument on politics instead of resorting to personal attacks or flaming?

Because you're a massive prick.

Charles Xavier

20th November 2008, 16:19

I can't speak specifically to that bloc as I was in a completely different part of the city when it occurred and have no idea who organized it. I would guess they wanted to engage in vandalism to try and make the situation in downtown chaotic enough that delegates could not be brought in. Probably also strike back against the pigs for their pre-RNC harassment and bring some energy back to the movement and give us a new "victory" as we'd been on a string of defeats with 2001, Miami and the Green Scare stuff. Other anarchists groups operating in the downtown area were trying to block delegates through other means and to shut down or significantly disrupt the convention, or at least draw attention from it.

Finally the answer I was looking for, this didn't have to result in this much flaming to get to it. But thanks for finally answering my question.

So their goal was to stop RNC delegates from getting in by vandalizing downtown. Did delegates got in anyways? Did it delay them? Did it affect the convention? If not then how is this a victory?

Charles Xavier

20th November 2008, 16:20

That's a self fulfilling question. It doesn't deserve an answer.

Because you're a massive prick.

Didn't your mother ever tell you if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all? This is very uncomradely behaviour. Please grow up.

bcbm

20th November 2008, 16:29

Finally the answer I was looking for, this didn't have to result in this much flaming to get to it. But thanks for finally answering my question.

Actually I answered it a couple pages ago but sure, you're welcome.

So their goal was to stop RNC delegates from getting in by vandalizing downtown. Did delegates got in anyways? Did it delay them? Did it affect the convention? If not then how is this a victory?

The delegates did get in though there were some delays and a few of the buses ran into some "trouble." As for affecting the convention, it drew a lot of attention to what was going on outside and probably got the various other events going on more attention than they would've received otherwise. It also showed that the anarchists are still here and can organize a pretty successful event, even if it is smaller than hoped and got people inspired to get involved or continue in the networks formed leading up to this.