Results 1 to 9 of 9
Tactical Issues
Here in Brazil we are resisting austerity measures impetrated by an illegitimate government, which took the power by a political coup, sustained by the conservatives and proto-fascist groups. There are protests that later turn into riots, and that´s specifically what I want you comrades to help me with. The resistance is sadly restrained to students and sections of the petite bourgeoisie.
The protests usually start downtown and most of the people disperse at some point, after some time, the police attacks and a few black blocs (outnumbered and disorganized) fight the police. There are hostile arguments between leftist political partys and black blocs, unfortunely both of them don´t have a clue on how to portray the protests to the people, while the parties insist on arguing that peaceful and ultra organized protests will raise awareness and make the workers understand, the black blocs insist that vandalism will raise the participation in the riots and force the media to expose them. Anyone has any experience related to this issue to share with me?
PS.: sorry for bad english, I can explain any misunderstanding you have, comrades
On a sidenote, as a disclaimer, I'd like to point out that the term 'tactical' (or 'strategic' for that matter) can be used, and has different meanings, in three different socio-political contexts, by scale:
History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle
So, to spell-it-out, there may be [politics] - strategies - tactics - operations, [logistics] - strategies - tactics - operations, and [individual] - strategies - tactics - operations.
What are you looking fr advice on?
Do you want to be a better protester?
Do you want to build a better organization?
Do you want to attack/overthrow the government?
The problem is that the protests have no goal besides protesting/rioting.
You can either try and better organize by taking a more prominent roll...
Or you can use the riots as cover for more agressive action.
Stop protesting and start voting. That's where real power is exercised, not the streets.
Voting alone doesn't change anything. Educate others, raise class consciousness. Agitating and organizing causes actual change. Voting is but a small part and often futile.
"I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."
"It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
I really really really hope you are joking.
"It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
"Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
"Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."
Hahahahahaha!
Good to know
Sure. The tension you're looking at is between the visibility of resistance, and the appeal of resistance organisations.
I'm essentially against the Black Bloc tactic, and I'll explain why. In the UK, anarchists and others have consistently maintained the position that the left, in its broadest possible sense, should maintain both the capacity and willingness to fight, and make the visibility case you refer to.
In my experience, this has not been useful in periods of low intensity struggle. The main effect I see is that the general public become afraid of participating in demo's, in case it "turns violent". And I think this is such a significant effect that it cannot be overlooked. Consider that if your events can only attract those who are willing and able to fight, or at the very least, run away, you've just convinced anyone who can't do that that they should avoid it. That's going to mean: most people over 40, anyone with children, anyone with a disability. On top of this, anarchists do tend to attract some people who are basically in it for the lulz, they're an easy target for infiltrators, and they provide an opportunity for agents provocateurs. And of course all of this is easily misrepresented by the press, and it definitely will be, which means most people will see only the bad stories.
This doesn't mean I'm wholly opposed to the Black Blocs or their strategies. There are times when a fighting spirit definitely does need to be demonstrated, where it stands as beacon of hope. But I think you have to be in a fairly hot period of popular resistance before that's really what people are looking for. I'm not too keen on the hyper-disciplined demo either, because it minimises individual participation, and because it accepts the premises of the prevailing order.
If I absolutely had to choose between them, in the abstract, I'd go for the peaceful demo in most circumstances, because I think the very fact of getting people out on thew streets is so valuable that it has to take priority. But it is also important, IMO, not to make a huge deal out of "being peaceful", and to retain the willingness and capacity to fight.
The tricky part is figuring out when the mood changes in the public, and they become thirsty for more. When they are looking for those willing to make themselves the tip of the spear. That is something that you will have to judge from your own local conditions. But you will have to figure it out by maintaining contact with the masses, not by talking to other revolutionaries.
The public will be much more sympathetic to violence they can feel is morally justified. Breaking through a line of cops that is blocking the route of a march is easier to sell then breaking windows or something which only makes sense when you're pretty deep into revolutionary practice. The general public has no conception of why this might be a good idea, or why it's done, so they will interpret it as random, purposeless vandalism.
The circumstances in which I've operated might be quite different to yours though, so as I said at the top, I'm giving you an explanation for why I've taken the position I have; it is not meant as a general principle. Personally, I cannot see what skirmishing with the cops after a demo has dispersed achieves.
No need to apologise.
There was a significant 'black bloc' event in the UK in 2011 - March I think - where a crowd of Anarchists broke away from a union-organised march and occupied (and smashed) various up-market shops in London. I watched a crowd of maybe 600 people clad in black - I was maybe 300 metres away on the other side of a fence - run up a street followed, maybe 10 seconds later, by a load of police.
The newspapers later reported this as an Anarchist 'hijacking' of a peaceful official march, and off course only reported the occupations and vandalism (and arrests). Not all of the groups involved were even Anarchists, but there was some unity of the groups around a 'direct action' tactic.
Unfortunately it was nothing like a 'hijacking'. There were tens of thousands of people on the official march and there was an Anarchist/direct action contingent of at most 3,000 people. However, the two groups existed as a weird kind of parallel structure. There didn't seem to be much attempt at engagement between the two contingents, and while I'm all for occupations and direct action (on the same march I think, I was part of a group that also discussed an occupation, not very seriously) it doesn't work if it's only a minority of protesters who do it (because generally the protesters are a minority, and a minority of a minority is always going to be small). What needed to happen was the mass of demonstrators needed to adopt direct action tactics; a small minority adopting direct action is going to fail, and a large 'peaceful' march is also going to fail.
If most people aren't involved in the protests, then I think the main job of revolutionaries is to show that the protests are actually in the interests of the working class, if they are (I'm a bit worried by your comment that this is an 'illegitimate' government though, are you advocating a 'legitimate' government?).
There is a group in Brazil called something like Oposicion Obreros: I have always found their analysis to be pretty good, though I don't speak Portuguese and usually come across them when other organisations are discussing with them. Do you know of them? Are they still going? What is their position on current events, do you know?
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
