How do we decide on tactics? Who gets to decide? (Boundaries to Protest II)

No, I'm thinking more of our current crop like ELF, Earth First, ALF, the Encana bomber, the majority of anti-choice "activists" and so on.

Sorry, but Rosa Parks they ain't.

I'd like an example of an occasion where "peaceful" (that is, conforming to the boundaries allowed by the very state whose actions trigger protest. "Free speech zones", for example) has actually accomplished anything of substance.

MLK's protests were met with violence, and it was the calling out of the National Guard by the federal government that forced the changes. 

Ghandis protests were met with machine gun fire, but the people of India, with nothing to loose but their chains, and facing and increasingly bankrupt occupier, could face it. It may well have gone on to this day had not Britain not faced annihilation themselves. It wasn't the Indians who gained independence so much as the British finding a way to outsource imperialism through new worldwide financial mechanisms.

What leftys seem to forget is that the forces we face have no problem whatsoever with using the most extreme violence to protect their power and privilege. The right has control the state apparatus of violence (police, intelligence agencies, the military) and they have no qualms about exercising and maintaining their monopoly on its use. Letting the opposition walk around in circles for hours shouting slogans is welcomed by the state as a needed safety valve. As long as the people are painting signs, they are easily controlled. That's why millions marching peacefully have no bearing whatsoever on policy. Even breaking a few windows at a protest are welcomed, since it gives the state the opportunity to demonstrate to those good law abiding citizens what can and will be unleashed upon them should they step out of line. It is even better when "peaceful" protesters become the target of the police's wrath, since it again demonstrates the willingness of our "protectors" to turn on their fellow citizens should the order come. Little old ladies being shit kicked by the police is good for the state since it demonstrates to those watching at home that the beast is barely in control, so don't push it. The boundaries are set by those possessing the most firepower.

If Black Bloc wanted to be effective, there are far better tactics they could use, and far more effective targets for their anger. However, as assuming as we all must that Babble is under surveillance by our multibillion dollar secret state security apparatus, I will refrain from spelling them out. Any "revolutionary" true to the name doesn't need my input.

Those protests that have been effective at forcing change (Venezuela's coup and Ukraine's orange protests) have an important difference to those nice saturday marches up here: the state had lost control of the apparatus. 

If you don't have the army on your side, you can run around screaming all you want. The state will watch, and humour you until it starts affecting business. Then, they'll bust your skull. Because they can. Because its what they do.

...another thread snerted upon.

This is the continuation of a thread begun last November. It is not about the 'Black Blockheads', it is about tactics for progressives. But thanks for nothing but negativity, once again.

They may very well be. Who knows? Who cares? The point is that it doesn't matter. The state, and their apologists, will always denigrate and dismiss any protest, black bloc or raging granny, as "fringe" right up until the point the last helicopter leaves the presidential palace.

Arguing over whether smashing windows at an otherwise peaceful protest is legitimate or not misses the point entirely. As far as the state is concerned, they are both harmless outlets for the hoi polloi to vent their frustrations. Those actions span the range from merely impotent to mildly annoying. Otherwise those in power, those whom control the security apparatus, can operate with impunity. Their goals will always be met, whether the streets are filled with placard wavers or balaclava wearers.

It is when real direct action begins that the state gets nervous. Then we'll see what it feels like to be beaten with the baton bought with our billions of tax dollars. 

When Castro was marching towards Havana, Batiste was still saying they were no threat, a minor group of terrorists that his army can defeat at will, a desperate fringe minority. Then he fled for his life.

Gee, thanks, Snert. :D  That post reminds me of the story of the two campers walking alone through the woods.  One was worried about bears and the other one wasn't,  The worried one asked the calm one how he could be so unafraid since there was no way either of them could outrun a bear.  The calm one said, "I don't have to outrun the bear.  I only have to outrun you!"

The majority has been rendered incapable of analyzing the repressive actions of the ruling elite, let alone demonstrate a level of awareness which would permit even the most basic objections to the heinous acts undertaken by this power. The continuous campaign of propaganda which serves to anaesthetize questions and responses, works rather effectively through the administration of massively distracting doses of fear and stupidity. And where the anesthesia no longer works, this malignant order, while wholly deserving of having united against it all the reasons for revolt, tries to dissuade people through terror, the terror of economic collapse and the supposed terror of besieged malcontents and enemies, anyone who provides an indication of having reached the obvious conclusions.

Ah, of course. BRAINWASHING!

That must be it! There can be no other reason why the populace could reject something as well thought out, and frankly, as perfect as anarchy!

Gimme a break. You don't need to resort to mind control to explain why radical politics don't appeal to the majority.

Yes obviously neo-liberalism is anarchists fault. Social Dems have a secret plan. For years (decades really) they wil support neo-liberal/proto-facist policies of the state. Then, when the conditions are right, they will sweep to majority rule in all provinces and we will have an NDP prime minister and they will shed all that neo-liberal camo and usher in a utopia of freedom and equality.

Well said RosaL......and an excellent example jingles.....which actually should be added to Erik Redburn's thread on what has been accomplished in the last 20 years....

It was once believed that a man's "seed" (semen) contained little tiny, perfectly formed MEN, too small to see. And now we don't believe that.

I'm not sure your question makes sense. Or at any rate, I don't think an answer, nor a lack of one, would prove that we're all being brainwashed.

I don't think the concept of "right" or "wrong" really factor into a choice of political systems. There's no "right" political system. I'm not, by the way, saying that they're all equal, nor that I don't have my own preferences as do you.

So you're saying that people make their choices about governance based on self-interest? Blatantly and shamelessly choosing systems they believe will benefit them? Oh, the humanity!

You answer your own question with practically every post here.

It wouldn't prove there were little green people living in the attic either. But I wasn't trying to prove either of these things. My main point was that the things people believe have a history and a context. A secondary point was that "the majority of 21st century Americans believe that capitalism is a good thing" has the same kind of significance as "the majority of 1st century Romans believed that slavery was natural, necessary, and approved by the gods".

ETA: The question certainly makes sense to historians, philosophers, anthropologists, to name but a few.

"slur du jour"

OMG, sometimes my destined to never be achieved love for you is overwhelming....    :D

I'd like an example of an occasion where "peaceful" (that is, conforming to the boundaries allowed by the very state whose actions trigger protest. "Free speech zones", for example) has actually accomplished anything of substance.

Whoever would argue that radical politics don't appeal to the majority has never paid attention to the CBC. Or lives in a bubble. I dunno.

But to answer the question of who gets to decide what is an acceptable form of protest, the media. Or, snert: white, middle-class, male, and happily married to his life of entitlement and privilege.

But Wingy, you might ask, how can you say such a thing? I can say it, my dears, because I do pay attention to the CBC (which for this pleasant discussion shall stand in for the MSM/corporate media/whores with word processors/your preference). What I have discovered through my many, many years of careful research supported through Hostess Potato Chips and Moslon's Export, is that the CBC loves, just loves, political violence, radicalism, and even terrorism. Just as long as its conducted within states not on the White House christmas card list.

For example, the CBC has reported breathlessly and approvingly on radical politics and violent protest in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Ukraine, Romania, Georgia, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan, Palestine, Myanmar, Venezeula, etc ... Likewise, The CBC has seldom condemned state terrorism when conducted by the US (drone attacks, massacres, Fallujah) or Israel (Gaza, assassinations, kidnapping, torture, the targetting of civilians, massacres) or Colombia (disappearnances, rape, murder, dispossession, massacres).

And the reason for all of the above is that political protest at home is often geared at altering the status quo that keeps snert warm at night while political protest and terrorism conducted abroad is often geared at shoring up that very same status quo.

A person could cause his or her brain to implode trying to figure out why peaceful protest at home is always ignored, or minimized, while legitimate protests that turn violent are always demonized as are the protestors. And the same is true for protests anywhere, peaceful or not, when they are conducted by those who provide snert with his warm jammies and happy, happy smiling TV faces whether in Palestine, or Peru, or Baghdad, or Vancouver.

To know whether the CBC will sternly report on a violent protest or cheer with the gasps of the near orgasmic, ask who benefits or doesn't from the perception of political instability and the calls for political change? If it is workers, indigenous peoples, or democracy as a whole who might benefit, sterm reporting. It it is international finance, global corporations, energy corporations, US interests (a combination of the three) who might benefit, near orgasmic panting reporting.

snert's contention that the majority don't support radical, violent politics is as valid as the contention that the majority wouldn't drink a toxic, acidic brew if we called it Coke or Pepsi. It's all in the marketing and the CBC is nothing if not a marketing company for Bread and Circuses Inc. -- Killing is our living.

Excellent discussion of 'Heart Attack' protests and diversity of tactics  by Vancouver Media coop's Dawn Paley on Rabble TV frontpage:

http://www.rabble.ca/rabbletv/program-guide/2010/02/features/vancouver-m...

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee wingy you goooooo....................!

You eat Hostess potato chips while researching protest on the CBC?  Interesting that you would support a multi-national through your consumption while doing this -- not exactly voting with your wallet, are you?

I think he was being sarcastic. :D

BTW, you're not using a Windows or Apple computer to discuss this, are you? ;)

@ Di - I provided a response to your earlier question - wondering your views on the thesis that civil rights movement used non-violent means to successfully achieve its objectives. 

Did it achieve its directive? Or is it my imagination blacks in the USA  are  poorer than whites by far, and are in jail in larger numbers?

Or are we only looking at Oprah et al these days.

As it seems that would be like us saying that First Nations,  are successful and thriving  from when they got the right to vote too, plus a bag of chips.

The reduction to violence, which is monopolized by the corporate state through its own self serving laws, is routinely wielded against citizens who extend themselves beyond window dressing forms of protest, and for some, it can materialize as police intervention for the impudent act of using a sidewalk.  Justified self-defence can be expressed through a variety of conceivable reactions.

In all seriousness, I couldn't agree more. You see, it's all about the power of the individual. You. Me. Us. Together but apart as grouped individuals representing real power. Purchasing power! I can feel it! Even as I ... I ... type ... OH MY GOD!... it feels sooooo good ....

I'm sorry. I'll get a grip, no I mean a hold, no I mean I will calm down, get into my happy place, think nice thoughts, icecream, sunny days, yellow flowers ....

Okay, so, back to where I was. I couldn't agree more. There is in fact an entire philosophy built around the very ideas you are expressing.  You can read more about it here. I like to think of it this way: let's say we all vacationed at a Florida time share with a swimming pool. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, there were 12 couples, with shared domestics, for a total of 30 people. Now let's say, further, we shared in common a swimming pool. Now let's also say six of us routinely urinate in that pool. That would piss the rest of you off (no pun intended but it works) ; especially assuming we all pay equal shares.

Now there are two ways you could go about addressing this: the communist way, and the freedom way.

The communist way would require all the gays and socialists to go away, form a committee, and return with rules that would include denying us pee-ers access to the pool and maybe even denying us our time shares. That kind of big government, draconian, tyranny-of-the-majority thinking is what's ruined this country. And the USA. too. It's turned us all into a nation of  milquetoasts pissing in toilets and lowering the seat when we're done. We used to be real consumers. Git 'er done, we would say to each other as we marched ourselves to the Home Depot. It's a damn shame is what it is.

With the freedom way, each one of you would exercise your God given right to ostracize me and my fellow liquidators. You'd leave us to the chemically pure water of the pool and our deviant practices secure in not only being politically righteous and ideologically pure, but that in being shunned through the act of individual choice, we will eventually recognize the errors of our ways and conform to individualistic norms. God bless ya. 

So long as you're not using the pool you don't mind if I swim naked, do you?

Fidel you old, Cuban, bastard, you ... I hear ya. I really do. I just don't care. I'd like to, if only for old time's sake (you're old, right?), but I just can't summon the will. I feel it. I just can't do it. You understand.

E.D. and change of life seminars are down the hall on the right next to neoliberals anon. ha

As for the pee in the pool...Nobody is going to stand on the edge of the pool and do that.  You learn as a child to urinate while immersed, and then nobody knows but Jesus. And it is a God-given right in this here democracy not to tell another person whether you peed in that pool or not, or whether you vote as a consumer/taxpayer peeing on the poor, or not. No sir. And it's those "quiet ones" that get you at election time. The "butter wouldn't melt" variety.

Putting together affordable housing projects is very difficult and requires bringing as many parties as possible to the table.  The Oympic protests have made this job harder.  While I wouldn't necessarily support it I could understand people if they were willing to take this negative outcome in order to build a stronger movement.  But if anything they have marginalized themselves.  Even David Eby has washed his hands of them.

Oh, here's something else...

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4801/

Derrick Jensen is a great writer.

Personally, I find the 'predictable backlash' far more revealing than the usual smishy smashy of the black bloc. Such a lot of fuss over a little broken glass. If this was Athens, Paris or even London such would barely be noticed...You'd think Al Qaeda had hit town. What a backwater get over it.

It's a good article. The comments are fairly discouraging (and familiar).

Breaking windows of the Bay is front page material.

I think you're so correct in saying that it's not just our individual actions that will bring about the changes we want, but they're a great addition to collective action.  The moral purity thing gets old and boring fast, but if the actions associated with it are part of something larger, they can work really well.  If framed in a philosophical worldview that embraces quality of life, which our consumer society robs us of in so many ways, it can be quite revolutionary.  It can be part of creating a new culture of activism, simple living and living very well while collectively changing the political landscape.  It's about envisioning and creating the future we want.  I confess to not living up to that vision -- spending way too much time in front of a computer...

goals need to be discussed. 

international media at this time may not be as important as Canadian media.

Harper is one of the worst leaders we've ever had.  Probably The worst.

He's bad for us and the rest of the world, on human rights, climate change, reining in the bankers, etc.  even the UK wants a transaction tax on speculation.

In this context there is a priority to deal with Our media, our residents.

Here, the messages of the other thousands of demonstrators around homelessness and housing, land theft (AS NAMED AND OPPOSED BY INDIGENOUS PEOPLE THEMSELVES- not masked wannabees) was Much More Effective in delivering a message. 

I did not hear anything about colonialism from media here.  That's a dream of those who participated in window-smashing.

As noted before, those who want to act out aggressively might find more emotionally-aligned occupation in the military or police.  Really there's a need for work with soldiers, i'm not just being sarcastic.

And people can be in solidarity opposing illegal police brutality while supporting fairness for arrestees. 

But honestly all this is being played out on the windowsill of G20 planning.  meeting tomorrow in toronto.  i'll stand with anarchists in defense, but not out-of-context aggression.

to be honest at this point motivation to get into the city to rehash all this is minimal.  figure it out people.

___

and to be fair, i should check out the G20 organizing site and get on the list before i make assumptions. anarchists were exceptional in Montebello- their energy as well as their music was uplifting.  their discipline enabled the police provocateurs to be outed. 

just hoping, here while i'm writing, that G20 organizers are putting limits on political sponsorships/endorsements.  Toronto is usually pretty good about keeping sponsorships non-partisan.  its one thing to be politically active, another to label an event by association.

anyway, i'll check out the site.

I'd really like to hear from the Indigenous communities in the region on how they would like to address G20 heads of state who are visiting in their territory.

I heard that at the Cancun WTO protest women took down the fence.  Prevented by police from entering the meeting directly, Indigenous leaders made their statements in ceremony where they were.

It did detract from that powerful message when a few hotheads threw trash around afterwards.

Before the FTAA in Quebec City, there was poor communication regarding goals.  When the fence came down, some with masks and cobblestones rushed into the gap and everyone ended up pushed back under a bridge, then dispersed. 

Instead of cobblestones, microphones could have picked up.  There could have been an orderly movement to the meeting.  A plan.

As it was, southern governments shut down the FTAA later. 

The g20.torontomobilization.org site talks about shutting down systems and ideas that are oppressive, and that can be done with multitudes in the streets along with considered creativity in civil disobedience.

re: Who gets to decide? The same as always:

Defence Industry has its Sights on the Olympics

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3189

"a look at some of the companies cashing in on 2010 security spending.."

(the Dawn Paley video at rabble wasn't cut up- transmission seems to be ok this time of day, on a Sunday, probably my computer issues are around traffic at other times.)

That video clip focussed on media's role.  The challenge for alternative media is the context.  Because mainstream media is biased, to attempt to provide any kind of balance, alternative media is forced into a role supporting the opposite.  It's a structural issue.

i've been in the same situation myself in protests, in support of the work of those who identify as anarchists for 99.999% of their actions, one has to figure out how to respond to the .001%.

Many of these dynamics can be worked out ahead of time.  It needs to be abundantly clear that actions are chosen through an actual collective process, not just individuals. 

If an Indigenous community/collective, or any other collective, choses certain actions, then other activists can reflect on their relationship and actions in planning around an event.

The dialogue goes on. In the process limits are checked and decisions made.  Possible and unforseen elements considered, options outlined.

Here's a follow up blog post on this subject

Vancouver Activists Accuse Police Sending Agents-Provocateurs to Olympic Protests

http://www.straight.com/article-291966/vancouver/activists-accuse-police...

from quotes at the article in post  78-

it's hypocritical to condemn police provocateurs who incite but not anarchists who do similarly.

saying that aggressive acts are a response to corporate war may be true, but unfortunately the time and place of these acts usually leads to retribution against those least responsible. 

and sure, the police can then be blamed for that retribution.

the question is, do acts of ongoing retribution and counter-retribution deal with underlying injustices or just mask them?

[sorry]...   or just sweep them under the rug with the broken glass?

[sorry again]...

ok, let's just say i don't have a problem with Indigenous peoples collectively making a stand on their own land, masked or unmasked.

I do have a problem with those claiming to act in the interests of Indigenous peoples making life more difficult for all activists, including Indigenous activists working collectively whose efforts are sidelined, and whose communities are then targetted for disdain and worse by media, the general public, and police.

Window smashing doesn't help anyone.  seriously.

Give me a break. I wasn't condoning the black bloc's "break stuff" tactics, or saying that they'll be effective in stopping environmental degradation. But, I'll refer to Derrick again here since I think he has a point when it comes to this question you've raised as well.

From his CD, Now this war has two sides:

"What would happen if cops instead of enforcing the so-called rights of corporations to make money, what would happen if they enforced cancer-free zones? And what would happen if they enforced Wal-Mart free zones? And what would happen if they enforced clear-cut free zones? Or what would happen if the cops actually forced timber companies to even obey the laws that are already on the books? And of course it's never gonna happen, we might as well be talking about Angelina Jolie or something, this is just fantasy-land... But I was thinking about this, what if instead we start thinking 'okay, the cops aren't gonna do it'? What if we start having community enforcement? What if we meant it? Just a thought."

He isn't talking about just smashing a few windows.

Another thing is, we have to consider the possibility that tactics that are sanctioned by and legally acceptable to those in power are allowed because they're ineffective, at least on the whole. This might seem a bit pessimistic, and that I'll grant you. But consider the fact that at every step of social progress, economic production (aka the destruction of the planet) has gone on unabated. I'm not saying above-ground work is useless but with our future at stake we need to ask those questions, instead of tooting our own horns about how spiritually pure we are because we are pacifists.

dgr-insurrection: I'm not terribly impressed with Derrick Jensen, for reasons I explain in this article:

http://republic-news.org/archive/178-repub/178_nenonen.html

A Response to Judy Rebick: Black Blocs and the 21st Century Anti-Colonial Movement at the Olympics

http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/blog/alexhundert/2905

"Judy Rebick, from her office in downtown Toronto, complains that "when a spontaneous anger against the Black Bloc emerged on social media, people berated us for 'dividing the movement. She says that, in fact, ' it is the Black Bloc that is dividing the movement.'

She is wrong..."

Well written article, and thank you for the link....it would seem some white people/activists want to listen to First Nations leaders/peoples as long as they saying what they want to hear. The minute they don't, they are disregarded as valid voices.

Did anyone else catch the interview last night on CTV with Shawn Atleo?

Hey folks, thought you'd be interested in this thoughtful response to Judy Rebick's piece: "In defence of a diversity of tactics".

The author writes:

"I have been involved in a wide array of coalitions on various issues over the past half decade, and never have I witnessed cross-movement solidarity like I have in the anti-Olympics campaign. In southern Ontario, as in Vancouver, radical groups from a variety of locations in the broader movement have come together to start to develop a shared anti-colonial analysis. This solidarity and unity, on the anti-colonial front, is deeper and stronger now than it has been at any point in the last 10 years...

Part of the strength of the anti-Olympic campaign, as a watershed for the new anti-colonial movement, has been the solidarity and unity around a "diversity of tactics." Part of that solidarity is rooted in the idea that you cannot attack one part of the movement without attacking the whole. When we remember to defend each other, we also remember to work together to build the movement and our communities. This cannot be done by succumbing to the classic colonial tactic of divide and conquer. Diversity of tactics means that one day we smash the system and the next we build alternatives. The Black Block is a wrecking ball tactic that makes space for more mainstream or creative tactics. The anarchists who participate in the Bloc are for the most part solid community organizers and people who are at the forefront of making space for creative alternatives to capitalism and colonialism. A diversity of tactics is meant to be complimentary -- different tactics demonstrate different values and objectives, and all must be viewed in sum."

You can read the full piece here.

Read Judy Rebick's "Breaking is not a revolutionary act" here.

The audio from the discussion rabble hosted with Harsha Walia and Derrick O'Keefe "Diversity of tactics: diversity of opinions" can be listed to in two parts: Part 1 here, and Part 2 here.

And since I'm listing things (catching up on reading after a week-end away), rabble radio's latest is called "2010 Olympics: a gold medal for activism". You can find it here.

May I suggest you crawl off and die under your rock?

"The other side" has been doing that for some time. It also uses tv, movies, magazines, radio.... 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

May I suggest you crawl off and die under your rock?

For godsake LTJ stop doing that. Another personal attack like that and you're taking a break.

Ooooh!  After that manga of Capital wasn't published here in English, I'd like to see this!

P.S. - I'm wondering if you want me to help out with some input.  There are key words and sentences in that work that need emphasis.

I take breaks all the time. But every time I come back, I see the same old trolls getting away with the same stupid shit without being called on it. It's disrespectful of babble policy, insulting to the majority of contributors, and pig-ignorant besides.

I was there that night standing at the front of the line beside first the Elders and then the Bloc.  I was dismayed to hear all the negativity against disciplined activists providing security for FN's elders and the march.  I walked peacefully to the line the cops had set across from BC Place.  After a few minutes the cops began to be bussed in and there were literally hundreds of riot gear equipped police.  They began pushing the crowd and those of us at the front had to play rugby to stop them from pushing into the crowd to disperse it.  Before the Black Bloc had done anything I heard police targeting them and openly stating they HATED them.  Many of the Black Bloc people I stood with were not white dilettantes as most who were not there kept saying on this and other internet sites but activists from the DTES particularly from the aboriginal separatist movement. If you read the articles by the people involved you will get a sense of the actual on the ground reality.  To aboriginal separatists I ask what could be a more symbolic target for protest than the HBC. 

Thanks Kim for publishing the other side and not merely publishing Judy's center of the universe views. Telling the Bloc to behave like "good" activists is to me a lot like telling pro-Palestinians to stop using the term apartheid.