More Black Bloc critique

OK. Let's not argue. 

Would that it were Unionist, would that it were.  I wasn't asking for self-flagellation or oblique conjecture though.  All of those things you mention are threatened under such relentless sabotage as to defy the most concerted traditional efforts.  Meanwhile according to the writ on your banner, the extent to which people are expected to tolerate the intolerable from the real enemy appears to be limitless.

I can hear the chants now.

What do we want?

Good jobs and real benefits.

When do we want them?

When the boomers die off but not before because they are more deserving than us.

Lets have all the boomers from the two tier contract unions out in front of the parade so the young people in their unions who have contracts that are not as good as their "betters" will know how effective the leadership has been and the true meaning of that tired old idea of solidarity.

I get a pension when I retire and the new employee gets the shaft.  Hurrah for Canadian unionism the guiding light and inspiration for boomers everywhere.  And those young people better not be mad about that because they must know it is the best that can be done. So please follow in the parade behind your betters in the union movement who will lead you to the promised land of wage serfdom at Starbucks.  Young people embrace Starbucks as your future don't smash its windows because the unions will organize those wage ghettoes before the end of the century guaranteed.

So, the arsonists and vandals represent the young workers who have been shafted by the older workers.

This "analysis" would be troubling if it were not so ludicrous and anti-worker.

@ kropotkin #71

I'll ask the same question about vandalism and destruction. Did those tactics do anything at all to help coverage of protesters' grievances with the G8 and G20? From what I saw all it did was hijack the whole thing (with the police's help) into some sideshow about  police repression. An important issue - but not why many people were there in the first place.

Actual coverage of the damage these powerbrokers are doing around the world - almost nil. In my opinion, those in power were probably pretty happy to have the smokescreen.

I PM'd you about this already, but in places like Europe those tactics were used up and became boring for all concerned long ago. All that happened is that some people moved on to more productive work and some went on to escalate violence - something the police and the army are more than prepared to deal with.

This notion that it is okay to commit property damage so long as nobody gets physically hurt..... using the reasoning that if one tactic does not work it must be okay to move to the next level, why is there any reason to stop at hurting people? There are people who don't see that as a barrier, and are we not obliged to respect their "diversity of tactics"?

But more importantly, once things get to the point of violence, reason is less and less part of the equation. That is what alarms me most.

They are definitely useful to the police and the state. And the intellectual framework motivating black blockers and their responses to critics is shoddy and dishonest (I'm thinking Ward Churchill and Peter Gelderloos here). But i don't think that's reason to not pay them attention -  in the absence of any effective left leadership or organization, the black bloc and people close to them do have a lot of influence, especially among middle class student "radicals" who have always been an important component of mass movements. Part of why they have this influence has been the indulgence of older socialists and left liberals who know better, but who have succumbed to the liberal guilt trips and bullying tactics employed by black bloc proponents, and the invocation of false notions of solidarity. Many less experienced people on the social periphery of the black bloc, and the soft left who went along with diversity of tactics, do not feel comfortable with black bloc tactics, but do not yet have a language to articulate why they are uncomfortable, and to resist the pressure to go along. It's important that this debate be explicated as much as possible so that people can make clear choices that aren't simply the product of bullying and social pressure.

One of the tactics of black bloc exponents has been to impute pacifism to their critics, and conflate a contextual opposition to black bloc tactics with a blanket opposition to confrontation, violence, etc. (They also impute ridiculous notions to their opponents like the idea that they believe that police are there to protect us, the police are a force of progress, blah blah. These rhetorical tactics are just plain stupid or dishonest, not even worthy of high school debating.) Yes, there are ideological pacifists and people who maintain non-violence as a dogma the way the black bloc maintain their dogmas, but this is not the primary stream of objection to black bloc tactics and it is disingenuous and dishonest to suggest otherwise. Yes, some people use the word "violent" to describe these tactics, which is a trap because it allows the exponents of those tactics to shift the debate to a ground that advantages them, even though the use of the word "violent" - whatever our disagreements about its applicability - does not in itself suggest a commitment to ideological nonviolence.

For example, very few people who argue against black bloc tactics will argue against the use of arms and violence by the Mohawks of Kanehsatake during the Oka crisis, or the Zaptistas in 1994. That's because most people aren't, actually, coming from a position of ideological non-violence. The almost universal support among the left for these two struggles is also why black blockers, in one of the more offensive rhetorical strategies they have used, try to equate those two examples with their own actions, or the Ottawa firebombing. This equation of very different types of scenarios - on the one side, extremely marginalized communities fighting for their very survival and using these tactics in self defense, with clear lines of accountability to their "civil" decision making bodies; on the other side, semi-clandestine subcultural groups of largely middle and upper-middle class, mostly white kids initiating offensive actions of this sort without any accountability (actually campaigning against accountability) and in the name of Indigenous communities, etc. without being responsible to those communities - is deeply offensive.

No, contrary to the false imputations made by supporters of the black bloc, the primary debate is about the effectiveness of these tactics in specific contexts, and our ability to have democratic discussion about what tactics we use in relation to the achievement of strategic goals. 

One of the questions that dogmatic supporters of black bloc and more extreme tactics can never answer is why, historically, the state has employed agents to promote them - US Congressional disclosures have revealed that in the early 1970s,  most incidences of leftist violence in the US (bombings etc.) were instigated and even carried out by undercover agents. In recent years, agents have also been exposed trying to use or provoke black bloc tactics. But this has been a pattern going back to the 19th century and continuing to the present day, with examples constantly being unearthed and exposed. Yet the exponents of black bloc tactics have no coherent explanation as to why this might be so. This point is also made in a pamphlet well worth reading - "You can't blow up a social relationship - the anarchist case against terrorism", many of whose arguments carry over from the case of terrorism and unambiguous violence to the case of black bloc tactics:

Yes, even years later, it is still unclear to Baumann what role he played in the "game" where police supplied him with bombs and weapons to engage in violence.

Similarly, it is unclear to many exponents of black bloc tactics why police and other agents of the state might promote and provoke the use of such tactics. The answer is quite obvious - because in our present context, such tactics serve the interests of the police and the state, no matter who initiates them or uses them; whether, in a specific instance, police agents were actually involved or not. Because this is the only possible conclusion to the irrefutable historic fact that the state has used agents in this way, and because it makes exponents of black bloc tactics look like foolish dupes, many proponents of such tactics put huge amounts of energy into vigorously and furiously denying the facts. 

A political orientation and a strategy that is founded on denial of facts, dishonest and disingenuous rhetorical strategies, shoddy thinking, and bully tactics, is not an orientation or strategy that is going to lay the foundations for a better world.

Yes, rasmus, excellent. Some of your points have in fact been raised here (you may not have pored through all those threads) - such as the false dichotomy between vandalism and pacifism; the false dichotomy re attitude toward the police (if anything, the black blockers seem to get along better with the cops...); the pressure and bullying to be "nice" and "comradely" to vandals and to accept a priori that they are on the "same side" and part of the same movement as everyone else; etc. But your post (and indeed the CD editorial) are great crystallizations of much of what has been said here, plus new contributions besides.

I guess the difference I have with you (if any) on the importance of "critiquing" these tactics may come my different perspective. In my milieu (primarily the union movement), there are very few who take these saboteurs seriously, and even fewer who propose such "tactics" for our own actions. If anything, the tactics proposed are often more "violent", but they are proposed and debated on the basis of collective and disciplined action, not the theatrical antics of a few adventurers.

ETA: I should explain what I mean by "more violent". I don't mean burning and bombing and vandalizing. I mean occupations, blockades (of vehicles or materials entering or leaving the plant), and some other things I won't mention.

The CD article is about as useless as most of the other commentary about Black Bloc "tactic". As usualy its just a repetion of the failure of tactic to do what it is supposed to do. Easily said. By the same token it offers no real organizational strategy, or even a counter tactic.

Again, CD is just reiterating the right wing construction of the issues around the G20, again deflecting attention away from the real problems of the G20, which was, and continues to be, the police repression. This amounts to the PLO denouncing Hamas over and over again, something that only blackens the name of the cause.

There is nothing effective that any movement can do to really prevent more extreme elements from taking the initiative, and at the end of the day, "diversity of tactics" is the best solution to making separations between differing groups of people, in practice. For example, the organizers of the post G20 Canada wide CAPP demo on July 17th, asked specifically that no BB tactics were to take place at this demo. Regardless some people identified as BB showed up anyway. There was nothing practical that could be done to prevent them from being there. Some people confronted them, and it seemed that there was a possibility violence taking place.

An outbreak of violence at the demo would have been just as counter-productive as anything the BB might have done. The BB will just make its cause fighting against the "authoritarian left", instead of the right, that is the logic of the more radical elements.

There will always be hothead in any crowd and having them remove themselves from the peaceful protests is just great. Indeed, I remember we used to have problems in demos back in the eighties with the militant faction of the CPC (M-L), and "containment" was a problem. Its all well and fine (actually its not) for people to intellectualize this issue and righteously declaims about the BB, but nothing except for clearly defined rules of engagement is going to solve this problem.

Oh wait, I forgot, the police repression and the security was the problem at the G20, regardless of the excuses used by the authorities to justify their actions. But of course, that appears to be a dead issue on Babble, and the left starts eating itself again.

If you really want to deal with the Black Bloc, the rest of the left has got effectively lead the movement, and show by example, in order to build a mass movement, within which the hotheads are overwhellmed.

I don't actually think it is a matter of degrees of violence (though I know that is the concept I have been harping on) because I acknowledge that depending on the struggle, anything can be on the table, even armed conflict and death.

It is a matter of keeping control and focus on the grievance, and use appropriate tactics that will result in a specific outcome. In that sense, I have no problem with occupations, blockades or even sabotage if it does some thing to address the real problem.

As things stand now, poor Mr Harper has wound up wearing egg for this (and has had to resort to an idiotic diversion tactic about the census). Meanwhile the people who are the worst villains have walked away unnoticed, and most Canadians probably couldn't tell you WHY people were protesting if you offered them a hundred bucks.

Sorry to piss on the birthday cake, but from what I saw in the news, that's probably frustratingly close to the truth.

Precisely. That's why we should not waste too much time "debating" about the actions of some assholes and provocateurs (whichever, as the case may be), and concentrate our efforts on getting the message out. That means organizing effective, united, democratically determined mass actions. And preparing clear rules of engagement to deal with and neutralize attacks, whether by the police, or by the tiny handful of jerks. But that cannot and must not be the public emphasis. We just neutralize them. Period.

You want to know how it works...

The Working Class leadership conducts a march. Ya it has all it's marshals in place to make sure it goes smoothly.

At that point, it just gives the route to the police. No negotiating, no nothing. The police make sure the route is clear of traffic and that's it. If they don't like it, to bad.

If they try to arrest people, then well, we have a plan worked out before hand (that is agreed on by everyone) to protect ourselves

Lets see what the Capitalist class has done with the same idea.

They plan a G20 meeting in Toronto. They deside were to have it and then errect fences to keep unwanted people out. They bring in their marshals (police) to make sure everything goes smoothly. If the working class protests then they have a plan of deterrence.

Monkey see ...Monkey do.

I was not trying to silence you I am asking you why you think you have the right to set the parameters of other peoples right to protest as they see fit. Why do you think you can determine someone else's reaction to our emerging police state? That is the part I don't understand. Where is your perceived authority to rule over others actions in opposing the every day brutality that is the reality for many of the residents of Canada.

Generally when community activists are organzing a legal protest they meet and disucss what they are going to put on the offical literature describing the purpose of the demonstration Like troops out of Afghanistan. rather than Peace talks now....they choose the marshalls the ones who help keep the protest in flow decide on who the speakers will be and generally form a united front rather than a popular front, the two are quite differnet. A popular frint might entertain letting opposition members speak, or even give the KKK the right to march in the demo since everyone has equal rights or some such nonesense. A united front every group must agree to the whole thing or they will withdraw their support and form their own demonstration. So these organizers also help get funding from the union to bus people in get money to print stuff labour donated printed at union shop, get permit from city hall and all the things that go into organizing a march of significant size. That is what gives people the right to protest and support what they want or do not want. And no you do not have a right to participate in a demo unless you also share those values and terms that I outlines above. That is what you call a democracy so if a bunch of skin heads tried to join our march, they would get their heads kicked in, no group worth it's salt would agree to go along with any support for the Black Bloc as far as I am concerned and the reasons should be obvious by now.

Cheers,

RR

I don't know what happened at this demo as I was not a part of the organization but I can assure you united fronts and agreements do happen-those who do not agree do not participate or get their names put down as sponsors or anything, they would have to form their own protest separate from the other group(s).  As far as law enforcement goes that is law enforcements job.  Exposing sabatours sure thing.  Self defence-of course.  While I completely get the black bloc tactic-insult those bourgeois moralist who care more about a broken window than the economic violence done to billions daily, let alone the physical loss of life courtesy of the US Marines Inc.  I don'tagree with it for exactly the reason that we are still talking about it today, rather than the fact that Harper has been in Europe all last week selling Canadian water rights down the tube. 

RR

How do you get the working class...general strike is where it begins getting to that point well once the Canadian public realizes just what went down in that budget that the liberals allowed to pass, it will be a choice for Harper or the NDP.  My money is on the NDP who else are they going to want in power when things are at their absolute worst!  Which is where we are going to be once the selloff of Brand Canada is complete. 

RR

Sso was it a calculated tactic or subconscience or overt anger that motivated the BB.  This is really getting out there.

RR

Reactionaries will create their own justification in the absence of willing volunteers. If the BB didn't exist, the actions of police provocateurs will suffice to give form to their repressive contingency plans. All the same, it is difficult to find solidarity or seriousness in a group which attaches itself to peaceful marches for the purpose of violent provocation. If the state sees fit to utterly ignore the messages emanating from a mass peace movement, as they do so well, then any group contemplating another form of protest would similarly do well to stay clear of them. Why reinforce futility after all, and why limit the expression of ones outrage to arranged spectacles and locations set aside by the state?

In all of what has transpired and debated regarding the G20 and other ghastly manifestations of brutal power, the same options for countering capitalist state repression, its relentless violence around the world, its destruction of countless species and the environment, continues to be offered up by those who refuse to accept that not only have they've been soundly defeated at every turn, but that defeat and repression, no matter which peaceful technique is applied to the issues, are the only conceivable reward for their efforts as far as the eye can see into whatever remains of the future. It is not without a sense of irony to witness the victories of the past coming under threat or rolled back at the whim of power and re-fought over, at the same time that they are held up as evidence of the superiority of peaceful tactics.

In the meantime, the same coordinated campaign of lies and treachery which preceded the last two genocidal wars of the past decade is being applied in full measure to yet another middle eastern war where millions of lives are at stake. All tentacles of this suffocating monstrosity are engaged to the same end, where the tragedy and human carnage has been laid before us by way of example far too often. It's not all that difficult to understand what we've become in the face of such inhumanity when confronting it in the manner it deserves is such a frightening prospect. Its much easier to justify why this system deserves to be approached at a distance and left undisturbed in its nihilism, safer to tear away at each other.

I agree with unionist that the persistence of the false dichotomy between vandalism and pacifism is just plain annoying, and, frankly, kind of dumb - so therefore I won't address it as to do so would only be repetition.

Cueball's argument is incoherent - he argues that only through effective political leadership can black bloc type actions be marginalized, then argues against important elements of what that leadership would entail.

It's quite false that there is "absolutely nothing" that could be done about the black bloc. Experience suggests that when an open debate is had and when people do NOT agree to diversity of tactics, and when they explicitly say they will not support or remain silent if those tactics are used, black bloc actions melt away, because they are essentially parasitic in character.Confronting and marginalizing those who employ these tactics does, in fact work.  That is why the black bloc proponents put so much energy into getting people to agree to diversity of tactics. They rely on the cover of the crowd and the silence of the rest of the left. Cueball says the action happened "far away" from the main action but this is untrue in physical terms as well as in its consequences for the movement as a whole after the fact. The breakaway action began in the main march, and black blockers returned to the main demonstration at Queen's Park to hide, performing their own ironically circular "march to nowhere" - which brought a wave of arrests and beating that caught many others in the dragnet. 

Cueball's argument suggests that these elements are just "floating" out there ready to engage in these actions, as if they are not in social and political relationship to other parts of the movements. For the most part the people who lead such actions are not unknown randoms, they are, speaking in general terms, known within the movements, and they require the support or silence of others to do what they do. 

Cueball, you talk about working in coalition as if coalitions are unable to have debates about tactics, but can only agree to a laissez-faire policy, and that only a highly centralized membership based organization can set bounds on tactics in the service of a strategy. This does not correspond to most people's experience of being in coalitions, nor does it make any sense. How can a coalition develop a strategy without debates about tactics? Diversity of tactics doesn't solve anything. Its only purpose is to provide cover for the black bloc and other such tactics.

You argue that these differences are intractable. Yet part of the problem is that where "diversity of tactics" has prevailed it is largely because the debate has not been had in an open way, and that the doctrine has been imposed through guilting and bullying and argument that we shouldn't talk about it. As I said above, the evidence of experience is that where the debate is had, and diversity of tactics not agreed to, the issue is very tractable.

Suggesting that the only course is to "agree to disagree" is deeply pessimistic. "Agreeing to disagree" and abandoning collective discussions about tactics and strategies in relation to collective goals is to abandon the development of the very democratic capacities required to challenge existing power relations.

You do not address the serious issues of democracy or irresponsibility inherent in "diversity of tactics" raised in the editorial. You do not address the issue of "whose repression?" You do not address the equity argument that the communities who directly experience police repression on an ongoing basis are least likely to support "diversity of tactics" and the additional burden of repression that it produces, nor does he address the liberalism and colonialism inherent in proclaiming the privilege of individuals to go ahead and use these tactics regardless, and without consultation. 

You dismissively talk about "intellectualizing" as if ideas do not have consequences, as if ideology is not part of the field of power and struggle - if it were not, why would the black bloc and allies campaign so assiduously for "diversity of tactics" to be adopted by the movement? - and as if theory and practice do not shape each other; as if many who are engaged in this debate are not simultaneously directly engaged in organizing. Those who have to deal with these issues directly in their work find it less easy to glibly dismiss them, and have no choice but to think or "intellectualize" about them.

You think we should be talking about police repression to the exclusion of talking about differences within the movement, as if both cannot be done - another false dichotomy. Yet the fact of our talking about police repression to the exclusion of tactical and strategic questions, austerity agendas, Indigenous issues, climate change, etc. is part of the problem with tactics that provide cover for police repression. You do not respond to this line of critique at all; you are a fatalist about it, suggesting, in fact, that movement choices don't matter, that repression and the specific modes in which it manifests are not part of a dynamic system, and that legitimation is not part of the production of power. 

In any case, everybody on the left is quite united on the issue of police repression and civil liberties - including left-wing elements of the mainstream media. There is no disagreement on the critiques that you mention, including the critique of preemptive arrests, suspension of civil liberties, and so on. If there is disagreement on this, kindly point it out. There is disagreement within the movement on the choices made within the movement, and that is a legitimate debate to be had. Expect also to see extensive analytical pieces on the G20 austerity agenda appearing soon - if you have trouble finding them, let me know and I can help you. Tthere is no reason we cannot and should not be speaking about all of these things at the same time.

You don't get it. You really don't listen. This tiny handful of individuals is totally irrelevant. Neutralizing them is just a management problem - besides, of course, any leftist who is asked saying loudly, "they are not part of our movement". I have pleaded with babblers to stop wasting time discussing this handful of nobodies who pretend to be o so much more impatient for the revolution than we are. They should grow up and come see us later.

I have clearly stated above, and many times, that such rules are for participating organizations to decide democratically, once they have committed to common actions and tactical goals. The tactics used to neutralize these (ever-vanishing species of) individuals must be fluid and dynamic and proportional to their (ever-diminishing) capacity to disrupt and sabotage.

Wait and see. And it seems odd for one who cherishes diversity and democracy to demand that others state the rules. We have no rules. We make them up as we go along. All we have are principles.

There will be no "battle". Imagine the press coverage when a fly is shooed out of the house through an open door.

The only problem that arises is when the assholes and provocateurs are allowed to carry on their sabotage unopposed. Imagine the press coverage that brings. Oh wait, you don't have to imagine, it's all over Youtube. Next time, however...

Little can be sadder than those who stare and stare at the popular movements and see... nothing. When change comes, they'll say: "Huh? What? When? Where?"

oh..before the thread is closed.  Hey Catchfire, what about the rest of us, what are we, chopped liver?  I mean come on man I'm using my own shit and everything. 

And why not? It isn't like a physical campaign against against rock throwing insurgents is being conducted here by the 'no' side.  Things would be different then.