STOP EDL! - Stockholm 4th August

[Crux]

you see, thats not how this works, you either principally accept an diversity of actions and then you are entitled to an debate wheter in this specific case violent tactics (and i dont consider throwing some fireworks really violent but i'll let that debate slide for the moment) where the best tactics considering the target, the crowd, the circumstances etc etc but you have no more right to demand 100% non-violence any more than the gungho rambo's have the right to demand 100% violence. even less, as pacifist tactics provenly serve only the state and enforce racist, patriarchal privilige; http://www.agamsterdam.org/teksten/h...cts-the-state/
if you going to demand blanket pacifism you can sodd off and play pretend at anti-fascist activism somewhere else.
tactics; violent, non-violent or a diversity there off are an personal choice, people choosing violent tactics should never enforce their tacticts (and where in their controll its consequences) on people choosing non-violent tactics but that goes both ways.
the radical block/actions should stay outside of less-radical blocks/actions unless invited there but you can never enforce your non-violence on people outside your block/action.
if you do, or if you for example photograph fellow activists without their consent i would consider that person at that moment an tool of oppression/extension of the state and therefor an legitimate target.

First off, from the report the comrades just posted from the demo the fireworks damaged none of the EDL thugs, 1 cop and several other anti-EDL demonstrators. Again a "diversity of tactics" implies that actual tactics should be used, thinking tactically is not throwing fireworks that give the cops an excuse to crack down on the demo and that also ended up directly damaging other demonstrators. We're not pacifists, and indeed we have been on demo's where liberal pacifists have tried to stop a breaching of police lines, and not such perpetrated by a minority black bloc "vanguard" but by either a significant minority or even a majority of the demo's.

I also disagree that tactics on a demo are a personal choice, because that implies a lack of responsibility either for the wannabe rambos or for, as has also been the case in some instances self-appointed cops punching frontline demonstrators in the face because they thought they were being too aggressive. Tactics should be collective and they should be evaluated, that's what makes them tactics. If a tactic, like lobbing stuff at the cops from the safety of standing behind the rest of the demo, has been proven to fail again and again we have a responsibility to evaluate and criticize those tactics. And speaking of self-appointed cops, it is no coincidence that police provocateurs too tend to employ "blac bloc" tactics, not implying that this was the case on this demo, but as you should be well aware, comrade, has been the case on other demos. That should tell you something about the viability of such tactics. A dozen people throwing stuff at the police at a 5-700 strong counter-demo against the EDL is not a diversity of tactics, it is a complete lack of tactics, it is akin to shooting yourself in the foot, it is enforcing a fetish rather than a tactic on the other 487-687 participants. And, again, in this case hurt more counter demonstrators (several, I haven't got an exact number for you yet) than fascists (0). And this is not accepting that even if some of the fireworks had reached the EDL, than that would have meant the action justifiable.

Is our goal to drive away the fascists or is it to feel good about ourselves, either by liberal pacifism or riot fetischism?

[aty]

The following appeal was published at the British Freedom Website this morning:

URGENT: SDL Members Attacked — Information Needed

Information urgently needed on Swedish Defence League members with forenames beginning with “I” and “P”. Paul Weston and the two Swedish Defence League members were attacked by a gang of presumed Swedish Antifa members outside a restaurant on Saturday night after the Stockholm rally. It is rumoured the two SDL members were abducted and badly beaten. Please mirror this message across all allied websites.


Update: From Facebook, via Twitter:

Just received a message from “I”. He’s okay but his hat and cell phone were stolen. The other guy named “P” is from Poland and is okay also.

They were attacked by The Revolutionary Front.

[Crux]

The following appeal was published at the British Freedom Website this morning:

URGENT: SDL Members Attacked — Information Needed

Information urgently needed on Swedish Defence League members with forenames beginning with “I” and “P”. Paul Weston and the two Swedish Defence League members were attacked by a gang of presumed Swedish Antifa members outside a restaurant on Saturday night after the Stockholm rally. It is rumoured the two SDL members were abducted and badly beaten. Please mirror this message across all allied websites.


Update: From Facebook, via Twitter:

Just received a message from “I”. He’s okay but his hat and cell phone were stolen. The other guy named “P” is from Poland and is okay also.

They were attacked by The Revolutionary Front.

See while I still disagree with this as a political tactic, at least it "gets the job done" as far as what the actions own short term goal is. I shed no tears for EDL scum.

[hatzel]

I'll just let you know that I'm currently half-way between you two...or three, but two camps, whatever.

On the one hand, I certainly acknowledge that black bloc stuff can have a tendency to slip into a self-declared revolutionary vanguard (one which simultaneously denies that they have declared themselves a revolutionary vanguard, of course) having a bit of a laugh doing all their radical posturing without actually doing anything worthwhile, and certainly without any real connection to their surroundings - this obviously (or at least it should be obvious) means that it runs the risk of degenerating into some kind of silly (though actually pretty common) leftist paternalism, those who have themselves decided that they are in a position to represent 'the people' then acting on behalf of 'the people' irrespective of whether or not 'the people' want them to. Given the fact that the vuvu orchestra stuff seemed to be pointing towards a somewhat more lighthearted event with broad appeal, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out that there would probably be a fair few people (your run-of-the-mill liberals, social democrats etc.) there who wouldn't exactly fit into the same category as some oh-so-hardcore black bloc dude, wouldn't be up for any radical posturing, and probably wouldn't want to be drawn into it such a melée unnecessarily and without warning, which can be a frightening and off-putting experience. A certain level of connection between the ants-in-their-pants minority and the somewhat more docile majority would be nice, and is kinda important if the action is going to actually contribute to anything approaching a radical political movement. It seems in this case that the decision to use violent methods wasn't the carefully-timed result of some kind of 'vibe' in the air, people itching to go and just waiting for somebody to make the first move, but just a bunch of people who can think of nothing more radical than throwing stuff at...well, nothing, as far as I can tell...wanting to convince themselves that they are, in fact, still radical.

On the other hand, it shouldn't be seen as particularly surprising that a demo/counter-demo setup involving the EDL on one hand and antifascists on the other might get a tad messy, so perhaps it is fair to expect those who may have reason to avoid confrontation to take precautions, like staying away from the 'front line' so to speak, so that it might be easier to get away should things take a turn like they did. Whether or not it was the right decision for people to kick off at that exact moment - or if there would ever have come a moment when it would have been the right moment to kick off (which doesn't mean that the tactic isn't potentially valid and legitimate in the right situation, which it is, only that the right situation may not have emerged during this exact protest) - should be disconnected from the question of whether or not it was realistic to expect otherwise, and it certainly doesn't seem fair to criticise those who introduced violence to what is always a potentially violent situation, or at least not to criticise them in the way they have been. If somebody doesn't want to attract the attention of the police for whatever reason, then I can think of much better places for them to spend their time than at a protest, just next to the large groups of police that tend to gather at such things. And if somebody wants to avoid violence at all costs, even being in the vicinity of violence, then they should know that such a volatile situation is one they should keep away from; irrespective of whether or not they wanted to engage in the whole thing in a more festive mood, the fact that there were such ardently opposed groups present, kept separate by a police wall, all this stuff...well, the scenario should ring alarm bells, the possibility of confrontation should be obvious and, as I said, people present should probably prepare themselves for that eventuality. The shit may have hit the fan foolishly, depends how you look at it, but acting as if there was no chance of something like that happening, that everybody was caught totally off-guard...well, I don't think that's a legitimate criticism. People on both sides went there because they were passionate about their particular cause, and most people would know that if there are groups of passionate people coming together, there's always the chance/risk of a spark setting something off. Oh, and it should be elementary that you don't take pictures of people in these kinds of situations, so...yeah, I'm not exactly going to cry that hard if people actually thought that was a good idea for some reason and ended up with a broken camera...

Now that I'm sitting here writing this I'm thinking of a section from Uri Gordon's doctorate thesis (or whatever it was exactly), 'Anarchism and political theory.' I'll reproduce the section below (which will hopefully make some sense outside of its original context):

In conclusion, let me look at three more important issues around violence which follow on from the previous discussion.

The first is that prefigurative politics may be seen to introduce a further requirement for justifying anarchist violence beyond the striving, however imperfect, to minimise it. The strong individualist aspect of prefigurative politics would also lead to the demand that the use of violence should be a worthwhile experience in its own right. We can ask, specifically, whether the experience of violence is by itself liberating, empowering and radicalising for those involved.

This again regards the emotional and affective aspects of violent protagonism. In some cases, as with the liberatory claims attached above to wild violence, there would seem to be little leeway for discussion — the experience of irrational, unmediated ferocity can hardly be engineered or summoned up at will. For more pedestrian situations of collective violence, however, several markers can be drawn. In his comparison of two anti-capitalist riots in 2003, Tadzio Mueller (2004) focuses on the context-dependent circumstances in which violence emerges, distinguishing between the affirmative “collective effervescence” of a spontaneous but tactically-effective violent moment, and the stale reproduction of entrenched “us-and-them” dichotomies where tactics are subsumed in a disempowering, set-piece confrontation for its own sake. During the Thessaloniki EU summit,

it was not merely as the result of rote repetition that the militants in Greece kicked off, it was a “rational” response to the structure of the field of militant activism, embodied in a militant habitus which generated a massively violent, but thoroughly expected riot...the riot ended up being fully “normalised”, it was “hegemonic” in some sense...in spite of all the nihilist graffiti and radical posturing on the squatted campus, all that happened was a mere (re-)enactment and reproduction of traditions, habiti, rituals, and power structures — from this perspective, the riots were more conservative than radical (8).

This connects to one point that has been evaded so far in the wide debate on black blocs (Bray 2000, Black 2001, On Fire 2001, Anonymous3/4 2003, Gee 2003). Anarchists continuously emphasise that “the black block is not an organisation but a tactic”, as an attempted remedy media misconceptions. However, it is still observable (at least in Europe) that there are many individuals for whom undertaking high-confrontational tactics while dressed in black is the repeated, and often exclusive, form of political expression during international protest events. There is, in other words, a “black bloc” political identity — an organising space within the anarchist movement that has a particular “flavour” or identification. It has several other distinctive features, such as cultural attributes associated with the punk/squat scene, and a disproportionate representation of certain nationalities. A relevant “black bloc” question is whether these identities do not become exclusive and/or constricting for the participants.

In addition, there are serious feminist issues with events such as this. They can be easily interpreted as strengthening “particular ‘hegemonic masculinities’, i.e. that valorise physical strength, machismo (in relation to other men as well as to women), and emotional passivity...[and] perhaps also generates its own momentum and problematic — one which is akin to that also represented by the machismo of a male dominated, body-armoured riot police. Given reports of sexual harassment made by women at the anarchist encampment at Thessaloniki...it indeed is tempting to see an emerging dynamic in militant factions whereby ‘worthy’ political violence is transmuted and normalised ‘back’ into the banal and disempowering violence of everyday sexism” (Sullivan 2004:29–30).

On the other hand, Mueller examines the unexpectedly radicalising and empowering features of a confrontation around the Evian G8 summit a few weeks earlier. The blockade, near the French town of Annemasse where many of the activists had been camping, was not supposed to be symbolic and non-confrontational. It was, in fact, set to take place on the main route into Evian — which the police had already decided, in anticipation of protests, not to use for transporting any delegates or support staff (they were instead driven to Lausanne to take a ferry across the lake to the summit). The event was organised, under strict non-violence guidelines, by the ATTAC coalition — which despite its militant-sounding name is in fact a very reformist and bureaucratically organised group, which lobbies for taxation of financial transactions and other marginal limitations to neoliberalism. However, as the march approached the point of blockade, it received an unprovoked tear-gas attack. Then,

after initially retreating about 50–100 metres and recovering from the initial shock, a number of masked activists, not affiliated with ATTAC, began building a barricade, while others threw stones at the police. Soon, one of the activists who had expressed her anxieties during the march passed me varying an armful of wood for the barricade — which had by now been set alight — exhorting me to join the effort: almost the whole march participated (3–4).

In this situation, activists without an experience in confrontation were able to draw on a new and alien action repertoire. As a result, they reported experiencing a qualitative break whereby certain things which were not “possible” prior to the riot had now become possible. Such effervescent riots, for Mueller, are empowering because they can produce sudden and ruptural changes in the established habitus, which lasts beyond the mere event and has effects beyond the circle of immediate participants through its narrative diffusion in movement networks. This is in line with a view that sees spontaneous violence “as a necessary and positive part of revolutionary liberation, not just in defining newly-won freedom, but in creating it...From this perspective violence is part of a total process and the value placed on violence stems mainly from the value placed on the popular self-expression and self- organization characteristic of revolutionary outbursts” (Carter 1978:338–9).

So violence may indeed be intrinsically valuable, through the radicalising effect of participation in its effervescent moments. I would go further to suggest that it is precisely the search for this kind of effervescence — especially the desire to recapture the founding ruptural moments of early mobilisations such as Seattle — that has played a significant part in motivating continued summit protests. However, as is evident from the example, the potential for rupture exists precisely in inverse proportion to how anticipated it is. This makes its planned repetition impossible — which is evinced by the continuing decline in anarchists’ interest in predictable confrontation. This is not to say, however, that moments of rupture cannot still come around — as one did in Stirling, or when schoolchildren led disruptive and confrontational protests against the war in Iraq (BBC 2003).

I personally think he has a lot of really quite decent stuff to say there, ain't gonna lie to ya!

[Crux]

Well, the situation seem to have been that a minority of around a dozen people, not only started throwing stuff, but persisted in doing so as it was obvious that it would provoke the police into breaking up the demo. I honestly don't see why it should be the hundreds that should be expected to act in accordance with the tens and not the other way around, especially with a tactic that directly effects everyone in the demo.

As for wheter anyone was actually taking photos of the black bloc or not, I can't say, but speaking from experience some black blockers might just as well have been so hyped up as to go after anyone holding a camera full stop.

And again people getting so "passionate" is not an excuse for "hey let's throw all tactics out of the window because I want to feel good about myself throwing shit at nothing/other demonstrators/near the police".

[aty]

Leader of Swedish Defence League complains on facebook:

[Crux]

Leader of Swedish Defence League complains on facebook:

They stole his hate...? Err...what?

[aty]

Think he means hat

Paul Weston leader of British Freedom Party also had to leg it, he seems to have a really good security running away from him

Paul Weston · Top Commenter · London, United KingdomOK, good, I'm glad you were not abducted but both of you disappeared somewhere. The last I saw of P he was in the middle of the road with Revolutionary Front all over him. The last I saw of you was in a headlock by an Arabic looking bloke. I had a scuffle with an RF bastard getting back into the Brother Tuck restaurant to call the police (who never turned up). I came back out to an empty street, went looking for you with a security guy from the restaurant. We went up some steps just to the left of the restaurant and were spotted by about 5 from the RF. Security bloke legged it one way, me another. How did they know we were there?
3 hours ago

[Sasha]

Think he means hat

Paul Weston leader of British Freedom Party also had to leg it, he seems to have a really good security running away from him

well, the security by the looks of it was from the restaurant, not from weston. if this guy shows up in a restaurant i'm working and claims his friends have been assaulted out front i would walk with him outside too, if i then get jumped by mob in an clearly political skirmish i would leg it too. not my fight, not my responsibility. close the door and let the cops sort the shit outside..

[Olentzero]

you see, thats not how this works, you either principally accept an diversity of actions

Oh, I accept diversity of tactics and actions in principle, but those actions and tactics need to be discussed openly and democratically beforehand in planning sessions and the like, not adopted in secret by a small section acting outside that framework who then employ those tactics regardless of the consequences. The Black Bloc doesn't speak on behalf the whole demonstration, and it is arrogant of them to employ tactics like that as if they do.

Majakovskij is dead on target in criticizing the Black Bloc for persisting in throwing these homemade bombs (firecrackers is an insufficient description of the shit they were throwing); the cops suited up for riot control only after the first bombs were thrown. This was a pretty clear signal that all hell had the potential to break loose if people kept that shit up, and the Black Bloc stupidly chose to ignore that signal.

As noted, the net result was that at the demonstration, no EDL members were physically harmed, whereas among other things one of my other comrades was temporarily deafened in one ear by a homemade bomb going off near him, and another protestor was bitten by a fucking police dog while trying to get out of the area.

I hope those Black Bloc idiots are proud of themselves.

[Olentzero]

First off, from the report the comrades just posted from the demo the fireworks damaged none of the EDL thugs, 1 cop and several other anti-EDL demonstrators.

Majakovskij, where'd you see that report?

[Sasha]

Oh, I accept diversity of tactics and actions in principle, but those actions and tactics need to be discussed openly and democratically beforehand in planning sessions and the like, not adopted in secret by a small section acting outside that framework who then employ those tactics regardless of the consequences. The Black Bloc doesn't speak on behalf the whole demonstration, and it is arrogant of them to employ tactics like that as if they do.

Majakovskij is dead on target in criticizing the Black Bloc for persisting in throwing these homemade bombs (firecrackers is an insufficient description of the shit they were throwing); the cops suited up for riot control only after the first bombs were thrown. This was a pretty clear signal that all hell had the potential to break loose if people kept that shit up, and the Black Bloc stupidly chose to ignore that signal.

As noted, the net result was that at the demonstration, no EDL members were physically harmed, whereas among other things one of my other comrades was temporarily deafened in one ear by a homemade bomb going off near him, and another protestor was bitten by a fucking police dog while trying to get out of the area.

I hope those Black Bloc idiots are proud of themselves.

Did the non-violent protesters discuss "those actions and tactics openly and democratically beforehand in planning sessions and the like, not adopted in secret by a small section acting outside that framework who then employ those tactics regardless of the consequences."? Afterall, the pacifist "don't speak on behalf the whole demonstration, and it is arrogant of them to employ tactics like that as if they do."
Or are you of the opinion that non-violence is the default? Because in that case you should really read the "how non-violence protects the state" booklet i linked to earlier...

[Olentzero]

Honestly, I don't know how the event was planned and who the organizers were; but given that there was a sound truck and several speakers were lined up for the rally preceding the demo, I assume that there were organizing meetings at which actions and tactics were discussed openly beforehand.

Had the Black Bloc come to these meetings and said "We should chuck homemade bombs and shoot fireworks at the cops" they would undoubtedly have been shut down, so either they didn't show up to organizing meetings at all, or they resolutely refused to abide by the decisions of the organizing committee. Either way they placed their own misguided convictions above all other considerations - like who'd be in the way of the cops when they came in for riot control - and fucked up what could have been a productive, spirited event that would have given people the confidence and motivation to come around the next time.

[Sasha]

Well, I don't know how it goes in sweden, let alone in this instance, but here and in Germany these counter actions are in general organised by AFA/militant antifascist groups. While often an tactical choice is made for an "in principle but depending on the eventual situation" only defensively "violent" approach offensive "violent" tactics are always an option. Principled pacifist groups like churches and mainstream trade unions often have separate actions further away and in Germany even those stand in solidarity with all antifascists.

[aty]

Well, I don't know how it goes in sweden, let alone in this instance, but here and in Germany these counter actions are in general organised by AFA/militant antifascist groups. While often an tactical choice is made for an "in principle but depending on the eventual situation" only defensively violent approach. Principled pacifist groups like churches and mainstream trade unions often have separate actions further away and in Germany even those stand in solidarity with all antifascists.

Trots will trot, and think they own every demonstration...

[Crux]

Trots will trot, and think they own every demonstration...

I guess the irony of this statement given what we're actually discussing is lost on you.

[Olentzero]

Well, I don't know how it goes in sweden, let alone in this instance, but here and in Germany these counter actions are in general organised by AFA/militant antifascist groups.

Well, this one wasn't, which to me explains why there were 500-600 people there instead of just a mere handful.

Principled pacifist groups like churches and mainstream trade unions often have separate actions further away and in Germany even those stand in solidarity with all antifascists.

You realize that there is a whole spectrum of organizations in between "militant anti-fascist" and "church/mainstream trade union", some of which don't condone or embrace provoking the cops while on a demonstration and who understand the necessity of confronting the fascists face to face, don't you? Why should the tactics of a tiny minority trump that?

And there is a huge difference between standing in solidarity with antifascists and condoning the use of unnecessarily violent tactics just to demonstrate the oppressive power of the state (usually against the wrong targets). I fully support the right of militant antifascists to go to demonstrations and show their solidarity, but I also support the right of the rest of the demonstration to isolate them and shut them down if they start putting the safety of the entire group into question.

[Sasha]

Can you specify what "isolate them" and "shut then down" means already? Because for all your insistence that your not part of the peace police you already several times shown to fully be part of their hypocrisy, slamming a apparently monolithic blackblock for pushing their "violent" tactics but atmitting that you weren't involved in the preparation nor have a clue what the view of the organisers was on a diversity of tactics, apparently pacifism is considered the default setting for you, a position I already explained is an white sexist privileged one that only serves the state.
Also the fact that you slam comrades for not wanting to get photographed shows an disstinct lack of understanding on your side of who in this case is the aggressor.

And by the way, again, I don't know enough about the situation in Sweden but here and in Germany it are AFA who mobilize the big groups, trots just parasite...

[Olentzero]

Can you specify what "isolate them" and "shut then down" means already?

Well, for example, surrounding them - maybe facing outwards from them and locking arms - and repeatedly chanting "peaceful protest" to get them to knock off throwing shit.

You're right in that I don't know what the organizers' views on a diversity of tactics actually were, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume they would be against anything that would expose people directly to the risk of being bitten by a police dog.

I don't slam anarchists for not wanting to get photographed, I slam them for thinking they have the right to destroy other people's property (i.e. the cameras) because of it.

And, finally, "aggressor" does not mean "the more powerful side", it means "the side that starts shit". In this case, the Black Bloc was the aggressor and because of their harebrained antics, a young Swedish woman will now be scarred for life. All your spouting about white sexist privilege and protecting the state means nothing when protestors get hurt because of Black Bloc actions.

[Sasha]

Oh okay, thats clear than, guess aty was right after all, trots will be trotting, nothing more than the same old swp "all power to the lolipop brigade" with an slightly more radical fineer.