babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
So the MSM and the right now owns the term "black bloc". Looks like we need to reconsider that tactic.
One word: Vuvuzela!
you made sure that got preserved, eh sparky!
as far as I believe it, the 'black bloc' always was theirs, a who on the left would label their group "black" anything?
It wasn't a problem of anarchy, krop, but a choice of tactics. We can be upset with the police state that has emerged but the choice to gear up to fight police and smash windows was exactly what was hoped for to delegitimize all our voices. Burning cop cars make great footage that works against our causes.
Harper must be awefully sure his base is willing to go for a police state, eh! As is McGuinty, and the ON provincial CONs for that matter too.
I'm not aware of any public outcry over the agreement a few years ago with the U.S. allowing our armed forces to cross into each others' countries in case of emergency; what happened last weekend is small compared to the implications of that. Sadly there are plenty of Canadians who would vote for that kind of state control if they thought it could keep things peaceful and orderly; it wouldn't even be fascism.
As for tactics I think that the unions should not allow anyone to march in their fucking useless parades unless they willingly sign a declaration saying they will be non-violent and show their faces and have their pictures taken. They can then be issued nice official looking tags so the Sergeants at Arms can roust any non conformers.
The reason this whole debate makes me livid is that anyone who has protested for decades knows that marching peacefully with a sign will never change Harpers mind. Unionist knows it and so does everyone else who follows the global reach of this police state.
So in our frustration we blame the youth who don't have pensions and benefits to protect and are frustrated and angry that they live in a police state and no one is ever fucking polite to them. Yeah lets have an endless debate about how they ruined it all for everyone. What a a load of steaming bullshit?
This has nothing to do with anarchy it has to with rage against the machine. But here and everywhere else the supposed left picks up the police state media's story that it is the black bloc who causes the PIGS to be so bad. Its bad enough that the police can say the "devil" made me do it. What makes it over the top is people here saying; "yeah stop making the police violent."
Protests don't work get over it and stay home, just please stop implying that somehow it is not the police state that is the problem.
I surrender you are all right. The police state that we saw on display would not have happened if various groups of young people had not broken windows over the last ten years at protests across North America. The benevolent state is not the problem, it is the tactics of the trouble makers. Without those trouble makers Harper would have listened to the voices of the people in the streets and proposed more spending on social services not deep slashing of programs as a global solution.
So, a few broken windows and strategically placed abandoned police cars burned, and that justifies unlawfull arrests now. Interesting, where some would set the bar for "necessary" totalitarianism. I hope, Kropotkin, you never get the government you deserve.
=======================
I think it may be premature to have a discussion about what works and what doesn't. And, I don't think there can be such a determionation untill there's a concensus of what it was these protests meant to accomplish.
If it was to expose the inherent totalitarianism in Toronto Police, the Liberal Party of Ontario and the Conservative Party of Canada, then the protest was successfull, and I wouldn't change much.
Again, if it was to change the media coverage from photo ops and the blather speak of the G20 leaders to the protests, then I'm thinking it was probably a success, too. Although, I haven't looked at all the MSM coverage to make that determination.
But, if the idea was to have a peacefull march where various groups are able to get their own messages out, then it was a failure.
I think before you discuss tactics, you first have to determine what it is one hopes to accomplish.
Just in case you missed the point of the quote above; (given its "subtlety") it is sarcasm.
So do I deserve a good or a bad government?
I hope you reread this post and restate it because it seemed like you are judgmentally telling me I deserve a police state. If that is what you intended then may I ask what would make you wish that I live in a police state? Is it moral fiber that is being tested for being deserving or some other unstated criteria?
Did I missundertand you? Upon further reading, it appears that I did.
A thousand pardons, Kropotkin. I should have gone with my gut; it struck me as really odd in the first place. This caps off a day of brain farts for me.
Actually, upon even further thought, I think I will have a little self imposed hiatus until I can think a bit more clearly.
To me there seems to be three issues here; one, should violence be used at these protests?
Two, what should the peaceful protesters do about the violence, if anything?
And three, what should the peaceful tactics be?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One, I'm of the opinion that the Gandhi approach should be taken at least under the current conditions.
Two, as I've already stated nothing. I'll summarize my reasons; I believe it is unethical to betray our fellow protesters to the authorities even if we disagree with their tactics. Also I think that it would be divisive to the movement to be seen cooperating with the people we are suppose to be protesting against.
And three, expanding the protest to areas closer to home of the elites. Also a world wide general strike on the date of the next meeting would be impressive in my opinion.
Well this may be nothing more than mental masturbation but here goes.
The police are essentially using the tactics of the phalanx. To defeat a phalanx you need to break it up. One could study military history to see how the ancients did it. Now I'm going to keep this non violent so I'll forgo the slings and arrows and cavalry charges or the modern equivalents of Molotov cocktails and motor vehicles.
One way to break up a phalanx and thus defeat it is with maneuver. This is hardy an easy task which is why maneuver is considered the peak of generalship. An idea that I have is for the protesters to assemble on a wide avenue with numerous narrow streets running off of it. When the assembled protesters are confronted by the police phalanx the protesters could break up into smaller groups each retreating down one of the narrower streets with the police in hot pursuit of course. The protesters could then circle back to regroup on the avenue and continue to march to their objective while the police try to regroup themselves.
If anyone is interested in this line of thought I'll try to come up with more ideas.
Cheers
The people first march on Friday had a black bloc show up in solidarity. They had been asked beforehand to be there but not to engage in police provocation or vandalism They complied. After some organizers were grabbed, beaten by police and then released members of the black bloc broke ranks and formed a ring around our organizers to protect them. It was a beautiful display of solidarity. They also helped slow down the march when some of the differently abled people were getting left behind. The hippies just danced. I know who I prefer.
Ooooh... i hate posting twice in a row, but I just found this and it's awesome.
Cop Car Burned! ALl Criticisms of Global Capitalism Rendered Moot
by Propaghandi
Kropotkin, thank you. Great post!
Now I'll respond to a few other posts.
I'd say that once a group breaks-off on it's own it has become a separate action. Wasn't this always understood to be what was going to happen? There was an agreement that everyone would start off together in an attempt at solidarity, but it was widely known that once the main march started to turn away from the fence, there would be others who would attempt to continue on towards the fence.
Seriously? Well, I certainly have. And I have to tell you, this whole unmasking idea reeks of privilege. You can make all the assumptions you want about why someone would choose to mask up, and your assumptions may even be correct most of the time. But the fact is, you don't know why that person wants to conceal her/his identity. You don't need to wear a mask because you have nothing to hide? Well, bully for you! You can take your privilege and shove it!
Ah yes, like the thugs who grabbed me and threatened to throw me off a bridge after a protest against the Tory policy convention in Ottawa because I questioned their right to prevent a disabled person from using the stairs on the Mackenzie King Bridge. These are the people who are going to train you to unmask "cops"? Some of these union marshals are bigger 'cops' than the real cops.
If that's true, that's pretty selective respect for "diversity of tactics" given how Saturday went down.
I will try to answer this question since most people aren't. One simple solution: If you don't want to get arrested, KEEP MOVING!
I was at the G20. I witnessed all the black bloc protestors disperse by about 5pm after the protest turned west on college st. Many other protestors continued to march to Queen's park. There were other scattered protests elsewhere. Protestors were trapped in many places or else had simply stopped marching and demonstrated in front of police. The people who tended to get arrested were sitting ducks, while I saw police retreat when they saw the roving property destroyers. The police were disorganized, and after getting reinforcements, they would march on passive protestors (and often bystanders) and assault them, arrest them, etc.
Later that night a protest at the novotel hotel met a similar fate. I wasn't at this one but I imagine it's because the protestors were standing in one place and got surrounded, and then arrested. A dance party held in front of the detention center was also standing still and got surrounded; the riot act was read and people dispersed, though some arrests were made egregiously for no reason.
On sunday a solidarity rally in front of the detention center was attacked by police for no reason and rubber bullets were fired. Again, protestors were static.
Since police are known to use excessive violence against passive protestors, maybe they should be told that police have a tendency to get angry and violent, especially when scared. I feel the police felt very threatened by everyone and so they attacked the passive for no real reason. They should probably be informed (especially when tensions are high) that there is no guarantee of their safety if they stand still and confront a line of police. Maybe small roving groups disrupting traffic everywhere in a city is a good way to confuse police and reduce incidents of arrest. Clearly even "freen speech zones" are now no longer safe places for protestors, after what happened in Toronto.
I completely agree. Unless there's reason to think tear gas canisters are about to be fired, there's no cause to mask up. Now how to unmask people tactfully, I don't know.
It isn't about changing Stephen Harper's mind. It would be nice, but it's an unlikely outcome. It's about changing the mind of John and Jane Q Public. If public opinion shifts, Stephen Harper has to shift with it if he wants to keep his job. When activists are viewed as criminals, even by association, it prevents that change of opinion from happening.
That anger's justified but channeling it into actions that don't accomplish much is surely a waste of effort.
Why not let the police be violent of their own accord? Why give them an excuse?
Other than a couple of individuals on this board, it is virtually impossible to find anyone - in the street, in the workplace, on progressive websites - saying anything positive (or even "neutral") about the vandals and assholes whose actions were conveniently used as a pretext by the authorities for their fascist attacks.
It would be wonderful if the movement has turned this corner once and for all, as a result of this cathartic weekend. No more rejoicing over torching of banks and cars, over smashing of windows. Dare we hope that organizations will meet in advance and discuss all aspects of mobilization - including how to neutralize the assholes without the "help" of the police?
Bullshit. At the rally last night, one of the speakers said something about not letting the media trick us into to talking about "good protesters vs. bad protesters". 2500 people clapped and cheered. People who are actually here and actually give a shit get it. Why the fuck don't you. Let's please focus all energy on holding the police accountable. I'm so sick of this shit.
What was the name of that speaker, Cytizen? Were their remarks quoted on any site (progressive or otherwise)? I'd love to take your word for this, but give me a little more evidence to work with.
There are no "good protesters vs. bad protesters". There are only protesters. Then, there are police agents, provocateurs, and common vandals - very very few of them - who must be isolated and controlled so that our struggle can succeed. Either we crush the provocations, or the provocations will be used as a pretext to crush us. If you don't condemn the assholes, masses of people will (correctly) conclude that they speak and act for you.
This isn't rocket science.
And I strongly suggest that everyone call them "assholes" or similar terms of abuse. That way, the few real people tempted to join in the "fun" will be discouraged by peer pressure.
Recall how Morgentaler fought for women's right to choose: by opening illegal abortion clinics. For me, that's real diversity of tactics. When the anti-choicers blew up the abortion clinic on Harbord St in Toronto, they lost the argument and established themselves in the firmament of the lunatic fringe.
Smashing storefronts and tossing feces inside only convinces people you're full of shit, and blaming the media is what politicians do when they get on the wrong side of public opinion.
People going to work, seeing the smashed storefronts, will think, "Imagine how much damage there would have been if the police hadn't arrested 900 folks." It's that much harder holding the police accountable.
Yeah, the divide and conquer stratagem that you employ by using terms such as ‘assholes' and ‘vandals' is wearing a little thin Unionist.
When confronting power on its own terms, one has to expect that an array of deceptive tactics will be bought to bear to serve as the thin justification for brutality against citizens. Justification is still useful to power as a cover story for its corporate media propaganda. It isn't surprising then to witness ‘black block' agents setting to work among the crowds in parasitic fashion.
As much as I consider useless the act of directly and peacefully confronting the elite and their body guards through mass demonstrations, I also can't ignore the profound sense of solidarity that is felt with those who do so, and who feel there is meaning in it, despite the fact that I disagree with the tactic. I suppose there is a minute utility on some level with the docile voicing of objections in the vicinity of the deciding class, but when a moment's thought is given, it doesn't appear all that far removed from a metaphor, where the imagery is suggestive of livestock being funneled through openings in the corral fencing before the rendering house.
Instead, I imagine these occasions with legions of riot police standing around behind barricades, sweltering in the heat with their thumbs up their asses, doing nothing, no one bothering to add to the sense of power that they appropriate for themselves by confronting them on their terms, being provided with what they and their masters so richly deserve, which is the utter rejection of a society that turns its back on them once and for all in disgust. Meanwhile, a more tangible act of protest to mark the occasions might involve tens of thousands of protestors fanning out in large groups at multiple points around the metropolis, quickly emptying the big box retail outlets, organized smash and grabs if you will, and distributing the contents among the communities. That would frighten power far more than tens of thousands of sloganeers holding signs.
I think that's an appropriate metaphor, SJ. The millions who are gathering strength to change this unjust world must divide off the adventurists and the provocateurs in order to conquer the real enemy.
Your disagreement with the "tactic" of mass demonstrations appears somewhat ahistorical to me. Not one momentous change - from the French Revolution to the defeat of U.S. aggression in South-East Asia to the overthrow of the Soviet-bloc regimes - has ever taken place in the absence of such mobilizations.
Conversely, never once have assholes and vandals triggered any positive social change. We dumb working people don't need cowardly arsonists and window-smashers and (ultimately) assassins to "wake us up". We know whose interests they serve. The only sad part about the assholes is that some of them don't even collect a cheque from those whose interests they serve.
Sineed, this is exactly what's being said in mainstream news sites. Fucking hell.
.................
Slumberjack, while sloganeers (thanks a lot) may not be effective, I don't think looting insured big-box stores is either.
If "effective" means "leads to social change" it can be very easy to slip into a sense of the problem is too big, etc.
I think what would be the better and rather impossible challenge is to have the protestors armed in an equivalent way to the police. It's not going to happen, but it would sure change the police's tactics. In the absence of that, we have our voices, our streets, and the way those of us with privilege use it on an every day basis to fuck shit up.
Well I don't know about that. I think if you were to ask among people who marched with the peaceful side of civil rights movement; you might be surprised to find a few who would give a nod to the Black Panther tactics as being useful to the overall endeavor.
The concept I've been trying to get across to you without much success it seems, involves an exercise in self-awareness to some extent, one which realizes that it isn't necessary to do the work of the power elite apparatus by seamlessly aligning with it in condemning measures that others feel is justified, last resort self defense.
The conditioning required to engage in collaboration without the slightest acknowledgement of what it is, forms part of the relentless multi-faceted campaign of control which is employed so effectively, involving direct police action, propaganda, beatings, arrests, planetary destruction, genocide, apathy, and last but certainly not least, pacifism in the face of it all to name a few. It's a comfortable arrangement of interests to be sure.
Fear is a useful tactic though Maysie. Right now they fear nothing and no one. Creativity is key no? ;)