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

Quote:

Do you mean "Nutjobs" [ableist] like those who brought the end of slavery, unions, civil rights, indigneous rights, queer rights, and a couple hundred other things won through direct action?

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 [i]can[/i] and [i]will be[/i] 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.

Quote:

They're a desperate fringe minority, not a persecuted majority.

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 [i]any[/i] 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 [i]real[/i] 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.

Snert wrote:

It was actually Michelle who introduced the Bloc into this discussion.  If you absolutely must do nothing but ferret out trolls and moan about the conservatives, at least do it accurately.

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!"

Quote:

The majority has been rendered incapable of analyzing the repressive actions of the ruling elite, let alone demonstrates a level of awareness which would permit even the most basic objections to the heinous acts undertaken by this power.

Ah, of course. BRAINWASHING!

That [i]must[/i] 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.

Snert wrote:

The Black Bloc aren't "forced" into balaclavas by a repressive state that won't tolerate their grassroots groundswell, they're forced into it because the vast majority of Canadians disagree with them and aren't going to agree no matter what they do. They're a desperate fringe minority, not a persecuted majority.

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.

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....

Slumberjack wrote:

What remains largely unrecognizable to most at present is an inescapable decision to pass from paradigm of corporate genocidal governance to a paradigm of living at the price of revolt, or we continue to allow planetary level disasters to unfold under the yoke of perpetual market growth and the protective security apparatus, where the imperial oligarchy and it's complacent plebeian classes coexist until everyone is enslaved and everything is rendered uninhabitable.

Good  post all around but this last part went almost to excellent.

The only thing I would say in adition is; the "complacent class" are a danger to themselves and the rest of  the planetary inhabitants.

That way I get an honest one.

Snert wrote:

[...]There can be no other reason why the populace could reject something as well thought out, and frankly, as perfect as anarchy![...]

Are you referring to the punk aesthetic, libertarian socialism, anarchism without adjectives, some other variant of anti-statist thought, or is this just the slur du jour? It is much easier to respond to you if you are more precise.

Military, Mounties Trained for the Games - Demonstrations a Greater Security Threat than Terrorism: CSIS

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/2946

"The role the Canadian Forces play in domestic security is not new in Canada but the security plan for the 2010 Olympics demonstrated an intensification of using military strategies to control public dissent...The Olympics also acted as a catalyst for integration with the US, increasing the transfer and training of military and security knowledge and equipment.."

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.

Jingles wrote:

A few examples I can think of are the online labour actions, Avaaz.org's successes, and the protesters at Clayoquot Sound who were peacefully arrested -- and were schooled in how to do this beforehand.  Also the educational campaigns around that time by WC2.  By exposing people to the wilderness that could be logged, they sensitized the general public about what they could lose.  These actions are and were successful because they were carefully thought out, empowered ordinary people who are concerned but don't know what they can do and produced meaningful results.

It would be great to see the discussion move to how we can define our goals, and come up with strategies to help us attain them.  Part of the goal is to gain public sympathy and support (which the smashysmashy stuff doesn't). 

Assuming that the masses are stupid diminishes our causes.  A lot of the general public haven't been exposed to what we have, and I find that when I explain my point of view respectfully to a friend, often they thank me afterwards for putting an issue into perspective.  What they hear through the media is so boring and confusing that they tune out, but once they see what's being lost and why they often become activists.

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.

Pogo wrote:

King's notion of nonviolence had six key principles.

I think the largest issues right now in both Canada and the USA are the collapse of neoliberal ideology in the economy, and phony war. In America the two issues are directly related. Harper has committed Canadian taxpayers to spending on US-style military buildup in Canada forward to the year 2020. That's a lot of money and resources to waste in a country that can't afford it with the massive debt they're dinging up now same as Mulroney. They will spend billions of dollars as before, and most Canadians will never see any benefit from it. And we are continuing to send troops to an illegal war and NATO military buildup on the other side of the world. HEL-LO frozen hosers? And some large minority of Canadians have swallowed hook, line and sinker the American inquisition's raison d'etre for waging phony war in the Middle East and Central Asia.

The 9/11 Truth and anti-war movements seem to be divided somewhat in both countries, but these are already existing anti-imperialist grassroots organizations with some fairly significant and credible people already backing both of them. I think the US bipartisan war parties worked together to create Al-Qa'eda/Al-CIA'da some time ago. And in lockstep, Canada's mirror image bipartisan war parties have shadowed US government policies in Afghanistan and Iraq from the time of both Bush's, Clinton,  and now Obama. Whatever Uncle Sam says goes as far as Canada's two old line parties are concerned. And Canada's Liberal and Tory parties are only concerned with fulfilling their colonial administrative duties and completing tasks assigned to them by their imperial masters in Warshington. If the left united on this, we could turn this war of disinformation against the US and Canadian right, and use it to destabilize the plutocracy like they've worked to achieve in so many other countries around the world. This could eventually develop into revolutionary change, and not just for Canada but in the heart of the vicious empire itself where real change, whenever it does occur in the U.S.,  seems to radiate outward like spokes of wheel to the rest of the western world.

I'm kinda partial with the cut of that jib at #30 as well.

From experience, the process of growing potatoes in the backyard and attempting to process them into a reasonable facsimile of the ubiquitous snack food is a fairly time and labour intensive process, where the end result never quite captures the desirable essence that one looks for in a potato chip.

Snert wrote:

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

Being seen as an apparent beneficiary of the catastrophic order of things has an opiate effect among the masses, even in the midst of an openly declared class war upon those who are accustomed as a result to a more skeletal existence. As long as people are willing to trade away the dignity of others for the economic security of the few, as long as they tolerate massive layoffs so long as it doesn't affect them, the police beatings, the multi-billion dollar tax rip-offs, the division of entire groups of humanity into threat assessments, one may never come to decide that such a system, even if voted in by an apparently democratic election, has no ethical reason to survive when everything else must bow to its will or perish, and only merits being dismantled.

What remains largely unrecognizable to most at present is an inescapable decision to pass from a paradigm of corporate genocidal governance to a paradigm of living at the price of revolt, or we continue to allow planetary level disasters to unfold under the yoke of perpetual market growth and the protective security apparatus, where the imperial oligarchy and it's complacent plebeian classes coexist until everyone is enslaved and everything is rendered uninhabitable.

@ 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.

"All resistance must recognize that the body politic and global capitalism are dead. We should stop  wasting energy trying to reform or appeal to it. This does not mean the end of resistance, but it does mean very different forms of resistance..."

Chris Hedges: Zero Point of Systemic Collapse

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/88/chris-hedges.html

WingNut wrote:

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.

[url=http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2009/grades.cfm]ASCE Report Card for America's Infrastructure[/url]  C- grade for parks and recreation, and  D grade overall

The freedom way in America has been to lower taxes, dreg'ulate and privatize just about everything in sight since Ronald Raygun. Public swimming  pools and Olympic sportsplexes across the USA began resembling that of the former USSR years ago except sans cold war embargoes and dirty wars to point to as an excuse for the failed ideology. In fact, the USSR wasn't as bankrupt by 1989. The city of Vancouver's waterworks need repairs and upgrades worth billions of dollars. Money for circuses but not clean water and sewers. It's busted, Jim.

WingNut wrote:

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.

It's the power of capital. It has that effect on people.

Di wrote:

I only mention it because this discussion just seems so far removed from tactics.  Voting with our wallets can be really effective, and it's frustrating that there's so much ranting going on and so little discussion of effective tactics.  Some of the other means of non-violent protest Gandhi used were economic -- like making his own salt instead of importing it from Britain, and weaving his own cotton. 

The big corporations are all about profit, so we should try to address that.  It doesn't take much.  If you shop at Walmart, why not shop at the Sally Anne instead?  Or buy local or fairly traded. Or buy as little as possible (which is easy in this economy). Or move your money from a bank to a credit union, or put your RRSP funds into something environmentally friendly, and let other people know why.

The Yes Men are great tactitians -- actions that make people think about what they're doing and providing alternatives is a big deal. Reducing it to violence/non-violence misses so much.  It would be great to see a discussion about effective/non-effective action.

 

Yes indeed, finding ways to hit the corporations in their wallets is almost always a useful tactic.    Much more useful than smashing a few windows.    Speaking of which...(Windows that is), I figure I hit Microsoft in the wallet every time I install a GNU/Linux operating system on someone's computer.   It means that they're on their way to computing with community built software instead of monopoly corporate software. Microsoft...one of the most profitable corporations in the world doesn't like me very much ;)

 Edited to add:   Microsoft happens to have an 18% interest in MSNBC..a major part of the NBC empire ... the folks who have the Olympic games rights in the US.   So wanna hurt NBC?  Organize an Olympic-sized GNU/Linux install fest.