On Legitimate and Illegitimate Protest

The black bloc causes police brutality.  They are the chicken not the egg.  So what was the excuse for the police violence prior to the black blocs emergence? 

I understand the debate going on within the other side.  It and the debate going on here is going to give some police security official the moral certainty to order the shooting of people in our streets for breaking windows.  Most people here will agree they deserved everything they got for ruining our great movement. The Union movement can't even rally behind the workers in Sudbury trying to hang on to the pensions and benefits that were won in the early 1960's.  So we tell the truly marginalized young people who will never get anywhere near a Defined Benefit Pension that they should be nice and respectful to the police and their masters. Peaceful demonstrations have never worked wonders to get social change.

I hope that when the fascists round up the black bloc they don't inadvertently sweep up any of you nice protesters because it would obviously not be the fascists fault but the black blocs and then we will have to have ten more threads decrying the black bloc for the police actions.

 

I have one question regarding the thread title.

 

I know what constitutes a 'legitimate' protest. What is would make a protest illegitimate?

If some of the BB were imbeded police informants then their tactic was a resounding success.  Harper now has his excuse to continue transforming Canada into a police state.  The social activists movement has been marred as a violent destructive movement.  And the police departments now seem justified in getting the hundreds of millions for these 3 days.

So given that in the post-Seattle world, no one set of tactics - separate or combined - have been able to stave off the deepening economic and political crisis, perhaps we need to start thinking outside the box? There are victories (and they should be widely publicized and celebrated) but there are many more defeats as our adversaries have the means to fight us on a thousand fronts at the same time. They have a long term plan and if it takes an extra 5, 10 or even 20 years to get to where they're going, they've got the patience and resources to pull it off. 

Ideology is bullshit and the stated aim of the NeoCons (and unstated aim of the NeoLiberals) has been to fuck with reality based thinking as much as possible. The black block kiddies are ideologues, they're tv babies that are desperately playing at being authentic in the hopes that it makes them feel alive. They like destruction - fire, breaking glass, blood, etc - because it makes them feel real for an instant (it's fight club baby). They're stuck in a narcissistic loop they can't see beyond, they adopt an AnarchistTM identity to try to feel real and authentic (fake it until you make it!) and as a release for their resentment about the world not telling them they're more special than everyone else. They could just be authentic, of course, but that would mean they'd have to face their own hollowness and being "normal" or "average" like the rest of us they despise and consider themselves superior to (they consider themselves more empathetic even though they have no empathy and, like anyone wiht a narcissistic personality disorder that sees others as objects to be used for selfish ends, simply appropriate the suffering of others to hide the fact that all they have to offer is suburban angst and rage against their parents, who they equate with the state).

I must say, my favorite bit of AnarchyTM retardedness has been the merging of AnarchyTM with new age rubbish (keep up that unreality based thinking!) and the North American Earth First Liberation Front Press Office (don't forget to send them info about any of your direct actions to publicize!...wacky that it was set up right after the US declared environmentalists to be domestic terrorists). Pretty wacky that all these so called "anarchists" are such ideologues! Talk about an anarchy FAIL. Not to mention a reality FAIL.

@Polunatic2, the basic right of the people is to be able to express their opinions of things they like and don't like.  Rallies are one way of doing that, especially if the people don't have a media outlet to carry their view because all the mass media has been bought by large corporations who only present their point of view.

The Black Bloc tactics using violence to crash rallies by labour movements and the like is denying the people this option.  As seen in 2007, the police sometimes use Black Bloc tactics to crash such rallies and march organizers have to be aware of that and stop it.  Otherwise, we have lost our ability to express ourselves through rallies and peaceful demonstrations.  And I imagine that's not an outcome that you want.

@c_t

You make some valid points about protest rallies/marches. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the police were responsible for the BB tactics. 

The ineffectiveness of one form of tactics doesn't necessarily make another form effective in and of itself. Any tactic should be empowering for those participating. I share the frustration with the way some rallies are organized. How do we make them more empowering and effective? 

When you get the answer to that you will have your revolution.  

I think if we are going to have a debate about tactics we should look to see what has been tried and what the outcome was. So far i have been involved in many peaceful union lead marches and protests against cut backs and more cut backs and you know the cutbacks just keep on coming. Does any one really think that a large peaceful protest will change anything in Canadian politics?  

For those of you who want to right me of as a defeatist I say since I have actually gone to marches and rallies for decades I have earned the right to say they don't work.  But I will still go because I at least get to say I stood up for my beliefs because the beliefs themselves are worth fighting for.

When over 50,000 people protested (peacefully with no black bloc presence) on the lawns in front of the BC legislature one of the Cabinet Ministers looked out at the citizens and in front of reporters dismissed the tens of thousands as Union Thugs. That was almost ten years ago and he is still one of the main players in cabinet.

I don't think any number of protesters will change any policy of Harper's or any of the provincial governments. Been there done that and was ignored.  Oh and by the way the only way that it appears the BC Liberals are in danger is from a populist anti-tax revolt not the progressive movements protests or the BC Feds fight back campaigns. 

 

The straw man is yours, not mine. Where did I say that the cause of the Left's failures in recent decades was the BBs? Simple, I didn't. I was responding to someone who insisted that BB tactics were the way to success, and noted that the era of the BB has actually been profoundly unsuccesful. I didn't say it was caused by the BB - merely that BBs obviously did nothing at all to enhance success.

 

Give up everything those things have achieved in the past century, and tell me that they haven't made the world better. No health care, no universal sufferage, etc. I wouldn't say they are sufficient, but they are quite obviously necessary to change. The BB clearly isn't.

My experience with anarchists is quite different than my experience with the AnarchistsTM I've met. The anarchists I've known over the years, and worked alongside many times, are nothing like the AnarchistsTM you see playing riot kiddie. Why? Because they engage in constructive action, even when engaged in protest. They never were deluded enough to make grandiose claims to be equivalent to indigenous freedom movements (or other self serving claims that appropriate the suffering of others). Sure there were always some street kids with drug and abuse issues (and lots of resentment against the cops) hanging around but they're not anarchists (writing CRASS on the back of your jacket doesn't make you an anarchist, it makes you a rather pathetic imitation of a punk rocker from before you were born, talk about nostalgia and lack of originality or authenticity!) In Quebec City NOT one local anarchist, those involved with community building and organizing stuff, knew the riot kiddies.

The main point really is that in my experience with  anarchists (which goes back to the 70s, yes anarchy is older than the G8/20 8sigh*), an authentic anarchist is flexible, adaptable and can deal with things in a context specific (and reality-based) way. There is no ideology to defend, there's merely doing the appropriate thing to get the best results. The AnarchistsTM are all about dogma - they're rigid and uncreative, so much so that they're easily manipulated and made into a tool of the state. They're merely providing a wrench to tighten "security" and being used as patsies to alienate the general public from their own best interest. They're tv babies, wired for sensationalism. They only really feel alive when they're engaged in sensationalistic activities and hopped up on adrenalin - just like the cops they mirror so perfectly with their black uniforms and anonymity, hatred for witnessing media and disdain the common man, and their total conviction that they're right and they are enttiled to use any means necessary to serve their personal ends (dressed up grandiosely as ideology, of course, just like the people they hate and equally dehumanize to justify their actions). AnarchistsTM HELP create the fear that police and politicians use to get more power...but, hey, it's all about releasing one's personal pent up frustration and not really about change anyway. I used to stand up for anarchists - even though I'm not into "isms" myself - but the riot kiddies/tourists and AnarchistsTM are more hockey fans really than they are revolutionaries of any kind. They're reactionaries - all they do is react. Direct Reaction isn't direct action.

FIFi  "They blah they blah they blah blah"

What are your believes? Stop telling us what you think someone else you have never met believes and thinks. It is tedious.

 

You implied that there's a correlation between the retreats and defeats of the Left over the last 25 years, and the emergence of black blocs during that same time, despite referring to them as "marginal". My point is that if you're going to dismiss such a marginal tactic because it's failed to deliver the desired results, there's a host of other tactics which have been even greater failures because not only have they failed to deliver, but they've been tried ad nauseum.

I can't find anywhere in this thread where Slumberjack insisted black bloc tactics are the way to success, so I'm not sure where you got that from.

You are incorrect. Protests helped to stop the WTO. But the purpose of protests is not to change government policy because you held a sign in the street. The purpose of protests, and why media, police and politicians believe they have to marginalize and attack protests, is because when you see someone who looks like you disagreeing with government policy, it can influence you to associate with the cause of the protest, It is the bandwagon effect that so frightens the authorities. Not the signs.

Thank you exactly.....almost what I would have responded.

Thanks for the link No Yards. I consider one of our great cultural myths to be the myths around the right to protest or strike.  We have few legal recourses for protest and any that are effective become illegal with the wave of a magic court injunction.