More Black Bloc critique

From Kropotkin1951:

Facts matter and spreading innuendo and lies about allies is not helpful. You keep repeating this same fantasy of the BB running back into the crowd after they trashed windows kilometers away from the main protest. Where are the pictures, where are the videos? Because to me it is central to your believe that some protesters rights should be curtailed by other protesters.

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.

and:

I am still not sure what actually happened on the ground.

And also: http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=2010072515&msg=27

The map in Fire and Flames clearly shows the Black Bloc returning to just south of Queen's Park and meeting up with the other march returning to Queen's Park.

So much for the lies and innuendo complaint.

The quoted material is the Nixonian silent majority argument, it's not any prettier coming from the left instead of the right.

Talking about who has the right to speak sure sounds like silencing to me.

I am not making an ethical argument against the Black Bloc, I am making an argument concerning the effectiveness of a particular tactic: smashing stuff.

My argument is that it is ineffective to the point of counterproductiveness.

I am not in any position to rule over anyone. I have no interest in exposing any Black Bloc'ers to the police, or beating them up as a trollish post suggested, let alone hunting them down like rabbits.

Ok, not beating them up. Then what?

Well, in my perfect world the BB practitioners would read my words, heed the error of their ways, and stop smashing stuff up.

Second choice would be for march organizers to announce that these tactics are not acceptable and have the the decision accepted by the BB practicioners.

After that it's a marshalling decision and I am out of my area of expertise.  Possibly a human chain barrier between the main march and the BB to prevent a rejoining.  That ought to communicate repudiation.

Can you point to an example of black bloc activities (I guess vandalism specifically, as the tactic isn't restricted to this type of action) occurring within the confines of a marshalled demonstration? Or of the bbers "rejoining" a marshalled demonstration after vandalizing stuff?

In Toronto the Black Bloc went to Queen's park after the vandalism.  I do not know whether there were still marshalls at QP by then.

We can't get out of this one by a close parsing of whether the BB is part of a marshalled march or not.  The public perception is that if the BB are in the parade and then leave to smash stuff the marchers are tarred with that brush.

Sure, it's not about the group, it's about the actions.

But as for me, I've said it once or twice and it bears repeating - if I saw someone smashing shit up I'd turn them into the cops without a second thought. If they want to play cop games then they can go for the full meal deal.

Just because I oppose the oppression in our system doesn't mean I sign on to support any of that stupid, pointless behaviour. And hiding behind the fact that the cops are corrupt so we have to let them hurt other people and can't turn them in is just cowardly, callous manipulation.

They think they are above the law? I'll have no part of it, and I won't be held hostage by it.

To both of you: in the last thread closed about the bb, I linked to a sequence which pretty clearly establishes that vandalism happened at the corner of College and University, that the group "de-bloced", that the police moved in and ultimately pushed a bunch of "de-bloced" and allies, other demonstrators, passerby and media north. Nobody that is identifiable as a marshall is there. It clearly isn't an organized / formal / "mandated" demonstration. Nobody intervenes as the van targeted as a police vehicle is smashed, nor does anyone clearly hand over "de-bloced" protesters.

I think it is very important to seek out documentation of what went down if we are going to discuss what happened, and whether / how to respond in future. You can indicate that marshalls should do something in a given situation, but if the reasoning is based on an incident where no marshalls were standing, you are not making any headway in resolving a dynamic like the one we saw here.

Here it is again:

South of Queen's Park (please note crowd response): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e05T85GFKJc

"black bloc" demonstrator runs into peaceful police line at Queen's Park: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XgEI5dCrE [9]

"While they're deblocing, let's give them cover." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo6JYTGObsw [10] (doesn't look like an organized demo is happening at this time, but it is south of Queen's Park.)

For a whole series from Queen's Park from this [above linked] point of view, check out: http://www.youtube.com/user/DeviousLeasha#p/u/7/z-j5FGwyDwQ [11]. This series is incredibly informative. Shows the trashing of the van, the movement of the crowd after this, the deblocing, the protests as police move in, and the *police* pressure to move the demonstrators north *towards Queen's Park* from College and University. [Additional note: these are real-time videos that were uploaded on the ground.]

---

Here's the clip with the police forcing protesters north: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo4PSyzKp4o [12]

The clampdown, a grassy median south of Queen's Park: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaYbq484abs [13]

@ writer

Sorry, I wasn't trying to get into whether the black bloc committed the acts of violence or not, who might have been arrested or blamed because or it, whether it was part of a proper demo, or who might have been complicit or otherwise not acted to prevent it.

I was just responding to jrootham's comment that raised the question of whether we should turn vandals in, or if we should not because presumably they are on our side, it is none of our business, or that the cops are part of the forces of oppression.

It may not be as practical and tactical an angle as the way you are approaching it - which I think is also very important - but it is a crucial question, and one on which there is clearly some difference of opinion.

Smith, in the abstract, I can make all sorts of statements about what I would do. While experiencing something in the moment, I have often surprised myself by doing something entirely different. Rather than get into individual "this is what I *would* do *if* I was there" I am more interested in exploring what happened, what it means, and how the movement organizes and goes forward with this knowledge.

Know what I mean?

I do understand, and I have found myself surprised on several occasions by how I have reacted in the moment - positively and negatively, and sometimes both at the same time. Given that there are many factors at play I know we can't say for certain what we would do ahead of time.

But outside of the passion of the moment the question of violence and whom it is directed at has been standing question - and an important one, because we don't all feel the same way about it. Although I don't know what I would do I can say I have greater allegiance to a shopkeeper getting windows busted than I do to the person throwing the rock. 

Getting clear on that ahead of time doesn't always prevent situations where you have to think on your feet, but it does help.

But if we are concerned with debriefing and talking about tactics then excuse the interruption.

Not interruption! Part of the conversation. Just laying out my interests is all. A note: You say violence. Others say vandalism / property damage. This too is a debate.

At the second media event surrounding a follow-up release of the "most wanted", the lead investigator talked about the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage (and at the same time, admitted he was guessing). He did not put this into context with the $1.2-billion (that we know of) spent on security that allowed such destruction, nor the federal government's decision not to cover such damage, knowing that it had occurred during previous summits.

(Does everyone here know about the Miami model? It's a very important thing to understand.)

I'm now reading what I think might be an important mainstream item about who we mean by the black bloc, and how they are now being presented: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/20/middle-aged-anarchists/

It is critical when we are talking about collective events. Individual "heroics" / action / response in the heat of the moment is not realistic to depend on / plan for. Hashed out, thought through, organized, trained, coordinated response allows for individual variations, group support, nimble on-the-ground adaptations, fluidity, solidarity and so on.

Interesting yet predictable that the authorities would haul out "property damage" when they are themselves largely to blame for it happening in the first place - both by inaction and the fact they had infiltrators. It's a bit callous of them to act like they are protecting the interests of people who suffered damage. Plus I don't think the governments had any money earmarked for damage which was not covered by insurance, lost income or wages - at least I remember reading that before the event.

Just read about the Miami Model. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_model

And I know some people see vandalism differently, but I definitely see it as violence. A broken window is not just a broken window when it is your place that is being violated and you that has to pay for it, and you have nothing to do with the thing that people are protesting against. I also got angry seeing that car being trashed; I don't care that it was a cop car. Wanton destruction is just an ugly thing to see and I can't imagine if I was with one of my kids seeing something like that how I could explain it to them - or the fact that people just stood around and took pictures.

I know there is no way to have everyone in a demo perfectly trained to any kind of policy, but marshalls at least have to have clear guidelines to act. Made me think of this bit of footage which I am sure everyone has seen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOzd5LT2g-8 [19]

I find it strange that causing economic harm through non-lethal civil disobedience, such as blocking traffic, wild-cat strikes and other "passive" means seems to be completely acceptable, but directly causing non-lethal economic harm by vandalism falls into a different category.

Indeed, Tamil protests in Toronto last year, were similarly attacked because of the inconvenience they caused to other Torontonians, which cause economic damage. Indeed they were attacked for supposedly interfering with necessary emergency facilities such as hospitals, and causing damage by blocking the Gardiner expressway.

Indeed demonstrating itself causes economic harm, since it requires road closures that interferes with commerce and a police supervision, at cost to the tax-payers, unlike the Santa Claus parade, which pays for its security. "Peaceful" protesters invoke the right to cause economic damage through there very existence, but suggest that their is some quantifiable moral difference between what they do, and political vandalism as protest.

Indeed, a strike is predicated on the principle that it will cause economic damage, as part of the negotiating process. That is the point of a strike.

So, please explain the moral difference here.

I think the only reason anyone cares about the BB is because the mainstream media uses it as a way to portray peaceful protesters as "associated" with some sort of debauchery. To be honest, it doesn't really bother me much that during a protest against the G20 and it's policies, which have led to MILLIONS of murders/deaths in just the last 10 years that people lash out at the inanimate objects such as windows, cars and atm's owned by the people who make said murder possible.

The main problem we should be addressing is the media and how they choose to blow these events out of proportion (if only they reacted so aggressively to REAL violence), mislead the public about the intent (they're just thugs), ignore the real violence done to actual human beings by police even before the protests started etc.

Like i've said before, if you think that the BB stuff is so bad, take a look at what protests look like elsewhere in the world.  In Korea, Labour demonstrations involve shooting flame throwers at the police, hundreds of protesters armed with clubs who charge and beat the police and hundreds upon hundreds of molitov's as well as bringing in garbage bins full of cement chunks which are lobbed at the police lines by the hundreds.  

That is violence.  What happened in toronto was just a little vandalism.

Like these places? 

• Ken Li’s souvenir shop 
• First Choice Gifts 
• Wanda’s Belgian Waffles Café
• All Leather
• Doctors offices at College & Bay

Pointless vandalism, milo204, and a higher escalation like you are talking about in other countries is just as pointless, even if it is more deadly. The police have far greater resources at their disposal to waste on these foolish games. Perhaps it will cost us $3 Billion next time.

And Cueball, yes, I have suffered economic hardship from strikes and protests, and usually it doesn't matter because I generally support them. And in fact I found shutting down Vancouver for a road race every year to be even more of an annoyance and hardship when I lived there.

And no, blocking access to a hospital is not good.

But there is a difference between those inconveniences and acts of destruction and violence. I don't know if you have ever had your home or car broken into but it doesn't feel good. Last time I got my car window smashed it was because someone thought it belonged to the drug dealing snitch down the road. I have a neighbour who still leaves his radio on all night because he was awoken one night by a burgler. While not everyone has so strong a reaction, a broken window in a small business is just as much a violation, and it pisses me off that there are some who think that any business is somehow a fair substitute for global bloodsuckers and that they are actually accomplishing anything by their actions.

I haven't seen too much violence up close, but what I have seen has been ugly, terrifying, stupid, and out of control. Even seeing that car smashed in that first video just made me sad and angry because it shows how impotent those people are. It is an act of utter failure.

You asked what the difference is and that's what it is for me. I think a small child would see the difference between a loud and even angry crowd of people and an act of physical destruction. But I know some here feel differently, and there's probably no point in getting into a debate about it. I don't think we'll be changing each others' minds anytime soon.

Excellent points!

I don't see a strike in the same category as blocking traffic. A strike is directed at an employer. Blocking traffic is directed at drivers, commuters, transit riders, etc to bring attention to the issues but those inconvenienced have no power to do anything about the issues at hand. 

Indeed. I had a car stolen and torched. I can't recall the deputy chief of police having a weekly press conference to address the issue.

As for your construction of events, I don't see that the majority of damage was aimed at small businesses, from what I can tell those were "collateral damage", whereas most of the damage was aimed at major chains, Cadillac Fairview, property of the state, and banks. Can we please move away form the distortions here. You have had plenty of time to research these issues, and the fact that you assert that the damage was "pointless" when for the most part it was aimed at the "bloodsuckers" themselves, from the point of those who perpetrated it, it would seem you haven't bothered to inform yourself. The construction that it was pointless is simply the view of the state authorities, one you seem to have accepted at face value, without question.

Here is one for you: Question authority before it questions you.

As for blocking access to emergency facilities such as a hospital. It really a matter of how you construe the information. There was no direct attempt by any Tamils to do such. There wasn't even any specific delay ever talked about. The basic presumption seems to have been that constricting any artery of city traffic, in effect would limit access to hospitals since it would constrict traffic flow. By this logic, any protest action, regardless of how peaceful, would cause direct harm in terms of reduction of emergency services, and to commerce.

In essence, this argument could be put forward to justify the suppression of any un-permitted public parade, because it causes economic harm.

@ Cueball

You asked for a discinction between two actions, and I told you how I see it. Beyond that, I think I said already that we're not likely to change each others' minds

But please don't assume that I am accepting the view of the state authorities without question, and that if just learned a bit more I would come around to your way of seeing it. I can think for myself, thank you.

Aside from my feeling that violence as a tactic accomplishes nothing productive, I do understand what it is like to own a shop, and I can tell you that "just a little vandalism" and "collateral" doesn't really do those acts justice. Even a local businessperson who owns a franchise from Starbucks or one of the other actual targets will likely find him or herself on the hook for damages and lost revenue while still having to shell out wages, rent, utilities, and regular cheques to the big company which probably didn't feel any sting from that brick at all.

Maybe I don't understand the finer points of class warfare. It has been awhile since I have been hunting too, but even I know that if you want to bring something home you have to actually aim at the deer.

Done.

All you have done is throw a red herring into the arugement, because it is completely obvious that damaging the property of small businesses is not the same as attacking the propery of "the bloodsuckers."

You have yet to establish any moral argument that seperates causing damage to commerce through strike actions, such as blockading or hindering traffic outside places of employment, civil demonstration that blockade public throughways, and directed vandalism that harms "the bloodsukers" property. Each of these acts directly impact commerce, and cause economic harm.

Please clearly define the moral distinction?

Indeed, on this very website, we have this story: UK jury: Activists' destruction of weapons factory justified

Cueball, are you telling me you can't see the difference between that action and what happened in Toronto?

It's somewhat less of a chore in attempting to distinguish which is worst, between the misdirected responses of the BB, and the anesthetized inaction of the elitist left, with their entirely inappropriate down the nose approach to the issues at hand.

@ Cueball

*chuckle*

I've had some really bad coffee in some really bad diners, but I wouldn't think to put them in the same league as a weapons factory.

Look. This isn't the first time I have spoken on this subject and it probably won't be the last, so I'm sure you'll get another kick at this one.  I think I explained pretty clearly the distinction I see between violent and non-violent action.

I am aware that some non-violent action is just as pointless, just as misguided, and also damaging, but that is a tangent that has no bearing on whether misguided violence is effective and right or not.

I also accept that you and I don't agree, and I'm not going to start repeating myself or running around in circles just because you don't accept that. For now, I'm done.

No mindless destruction of property, okay we get that. Now care to tell me your strategy to getting the issues in front of the elite who run the world? Lets hear your alternative. We have heard what you don't want so lets hear your positive side. 

I have been in peaceful well marshaled marches that were in the tens of thousands and were totally ignored by any decision maker.  I have watched people far more heroic than I fight peacefully to no avail.  So please tell me your road to the promised land.

http://mostlywater.org/elder_harriet_nahanee_dies_after_release_from_jail

In Vancouver the bb provided security for the native elders. From where I stood [at the front eye to eye with the police and to one side of the elders] the native elders were not only being protecteed by the bb but they were also in control of the group.  It was their security.  The next day some of the same people broke windows in a separate protest action.  The day after that the same group scaled the fences of the city's vacant lots.  After committing this break and enter they then unlocked the gates and let all their henchmen in. You should read about the awful things that occurred from this direct action. 

http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/photo/2808 [34]

So tell us what you think is going to work since you seem to have no problem telling others how to oppose the state.

If you were leaving a hockey game would you expect the minor hockey associations to provide marshals to ensure there is no property damage? My guess is you would not.  Where is the debate about self policing of Canadian residents to stop yahoos who take to the streets after a hockey game?  Why is it only mindless political destruction you want to debate about?  Mindless property destruction we can let pass as a society but politically motivated property destruction is a far greater evil that all right thinking people should condemn. 

I think the real problem is in the idea of property rights. Personal Property rights are a Capitalist idea not a Socialist one.

Under Socialism, the owners of the windows would be everyone.

So If I smashed a window it would be my window just as much as it is yours.

Replacing it under Socialism, would mean going to the windoow shop and picking up a new one.

But what happens when people think the Capitalist ideology of personal property rights is correct? They get all bent out of shape wondering how they will coming up with the Capital to replace the smashed window.

Then there is the whole Capitalist exploitation of the worker, that is involved with the production of the window.

So in the end the real person that owned the window was probably the person that made it. It was then stolen from that person by the Capitalist owner of the window factory. Which sold it to someone else creating surplus value at the expense of the worker.

The windows that were smashed at the Toronto G20 was stolen property to begin with.

And then you can look at the Black Bloc as the working class representatives, smashing up the property that was stolen from the workers that made the stuff. Really they are heros.

Word of advice... Stay away from anyone that has a strong belief in property rights... They will rat you out.

I don't care about getting my ideas in front of the elite.  I care about getting them in front of my friends, neighbours and co-workers.  Knock on doors at election time, talk about these issues.  Organize unions.  Organize community groups to deal with the local issues.

Same methods we have been using all along, just ramped up a little bit more.

And don't say these have gotten us nothing.  We are a long way from feudalism.  We are even a long way from unrestricted capitalism.

Yes, we have been going backwards in some areas in the recent past.  It's time to crank up the democratic response.

Political theatre has its place.  But it is no substitute for hard core organizing.  There are no silver bullets.  It's hard and long and frustrating, but it is the only available solution.

A series of revolutions, uprisings and some serious unrest did damage property over that long way.

@ kropotkin1951

Well actually I'd like to complain about my damn neighbours who let their cats come in and shit in my garden, but I didn't think it would be quite relevant on a forum for political issues. Hockey hooligans might be a bit more relevant, but then this is more of a curling town, so I wouldn't know.

I assume you read what I wrote above. I'd rather not repeat it. As for what you said, the fact that some people might do good work one day doesn't excuse them doing something damaging on another day, and it doesn't change my feeling that street violence is a misguided, pointless and ineffective tactic that hurts the wrong people and plays into the hands of cops. Why would they take the time to incite some of it otherwise?

And as for changing the world, none of us has that perfect solution, so please don't try to play that card on me. But I do know that real and lasting change only comes when a critical mass of people embraces it. As far as Canada is concerned, that change has almost always been brought about by people acting in a way that is sometimes firm, but thankfully rarely violent - at least on the part of the people, if not the police.

When I see violence elsewhere in the world I see nothing to aspire to, and nothing I would ever want to bring here. Violence is never something we should desire, and gratuitous violence especially, in my opinion, is a mockery of of those who have been put in a position where they have no choice but to use force.

Yes you have stated that you disagree. What you have not stated is why you think that economic damage in terms of property damage, is substantivcely different than economic damage by blockade or other interference.

Indeed, the logic of the anarchist argument is that large corporations, for example banks, are an integrated part of a larger economic structure which includes direct ownership and investment in harmful production including investments and ownership in arms manufacture.

To be clear, I don't support this particular tactic, but I do support the right of people to assert their moral right to protest in a manner that causes non-life threatening economic damage. In other words, just because I happen to believe personally that I do not feel it is effective to smash the windows of a CIBC, because it is part of larger structure of corporate capital that funds the arms trade, and profits from causing irreparable harm to the environment, does not mean that I feel compelled to hinder those that do, when those activities do not directly violate my position.

Much of the violence around the world that you are referring to originates from western sponsored conferences and boardrooms. Just as the Wall Street meltdown of the past two years can be seen as the result of corporate competition , so too are the endless series of bloody conflagrations which destroy the lives of those who are not even afforded the dignity of being counted as part of the cost. North America and Europe are the safe havens for these global terrorists to plot their greedy destruction everywhere, precisely due to the fact that this is where the powerful enjoy minimal interference with their malignant schemes. In North America for instance, a few baton waving cops are all it takes to simultaneously encourage obedience on the one hand, and indignation toward anyone who might step out of line on the other. As a result the rest of the world, and indeed selected communities among the western majority, are left to grapple on their own with whatever the parasites decide is a fitting reward for objecting to their fate.

And most of those didn't actually gain anything.  What they did was prepare the way for the big changes to happen in a democratic fashion.

The idea that poor people should not occaisionally starve to death is a 20th century invention.  It mostly happened between 1930 and 1970.  It is the result of mass democracy (Amartya Sen).  There were no mass democracies before 1900.  Now, it is the expected ruling mechanism.  Places that don't have it have to pretend they do.

This statement is contradictory. If it prepared the way, then it allowed huge gains. It is significant. The changes didn't come in a vacuum.

As for the huge changes seen between 1930 - 1970, it's very important not to forget the Soviet Union and its role in this period. The New Deal came after massive demonstrations, unrest and growing radicalism in the streets of the United States.

There is a reason why Roosevelt is Conrad Black's hero.

Since the collapse of the Soviet bloc, we have seen a significant ratcheting back of the progress made when capitalists and their political representatives were looking over their shoulders.

6079  My post was mostly written with JR's post in mind.  I understand that people don't like property damage but that runs right into the problem of whose job is it too control the individuals that want to do this.  The police arrested people they considered to be bb before anything happened. I am sick and tired of turning inward and saying the reason people aren't getting the message is the bb.  The reason people are not getting the message is because we have the most pervasive propaganda machine every imagined. Turn on any media and the message is the same consume, consume, consume.  Simply marching peacefully in the streets is not going to overcome people's complacency and their love of malls. It is only one part of awareness building. I saw video of the bb trashing the Bay in Vancouver with their allies doing a teaching moment with the bystanders and tourists.  Many of them had no idea of the Bay's role in the ongoing tragedy inflicted on FN's.  

As well I get my views from my own reading of our history. I don't buy the idea that our FPTP system was the catalyst for any change in the 50's and 60's.  It was a vehicle for getting concessions on one side and buying acquiesce in exchange for those concessions on the other side.  Since that period we have heard a constant mantra from our social democratic left that even talking abut socialism is a turn of to most Canadians so we have stifled any debate about alternate systems for decades while our unions and social democratic governments fought rearguard actions as the elite began clawing it all back bit by bit.

Canadian gains were made by workers in the streets demanding their rights.  The veterans of WWII came home and said enough is enough we want our share.  Some believe that the Canadian elite then benevolently said yes, yes that is only fair.  I don't share that belief.  I believe the family compact/Upper Canada College elite looked out the window in 1951 and said holy fuck these hardened vets are not to be taken for granted.  Tommy gave us medicare but the CCF was not the only left party and the people who fought as MAcPaps were involved in left politics everywhere in Canada.  The reason why working people made those strides is because THEY feared the peoples violence if THEY went back to business as usual aka 1935.  The family compact apparently has longer memories and a better multi generational historical understanding. They gave us CPP, UI and medicare because of pressure not the ballet box.  The Conservatives and the Liberals were in power federally when all those things were enacted.  Its not like we ever elected a government nationally that wrested those things out of the UCC crowd. The great peace truce with the workers of Canada lasted at most a decade from the mid 60's to the early 70's with wage controls ending any sense of worker influence over government.  

I know my view of history is not shared by all but I think it helps to put into context why I think that we need a spectrum of anti-state protest for the social democrats to be thrown a bone.  In fact without a threat of real economic harm the family compact doesn't care how many thousands of people go into the streets on any given day, just as long as at the end of the week there were more visits to malls than to the streets.  

Indeed, we (white people) are often very fond of talking about our affection for Martin Luther King, and the peaceful path to civil rights in the USA. However, my experience is that African Americans, on the whole accord figures like Malcolm X at least as much respect as MLK. When one looks at the totality of the civil rights movement in the USA, one can see clearly that "pacifist" democratic processes unfolded against the backdrop of latent, and sometimes overt rebellion from the African American community.

The same is true of the Congress party in India, which included a strongly militant faction aside from Gandhi. Likewise, Nelson Madella's success in South Africa, is not just the result of him sitting on his ass in jail waiting for the moral justice of his moral position to be recognized by P.W. Botha. Indeed, the organization that he founded was engaged in violent militant struggle, strikes, including bombings, attacks on state police and military personnel: the ultimate aim was to undermine the economic process to make Apartheid economically unfeasible. No one believed that the ANC could defeat the army of South Africa by force.

Greenpeace UK just did an action, closing down something like 30 BP stations, putting up clean, professional signs indicating that each location was closing because BP *was* actually going to move "Beyond Petroleum". This direct action included pulling out the pins that allowed access to the central fuel reservoirs of each station. Those pins were taken away. Replacements will need to be ordered and installed.

In the face of the wars, in the face of the environmental disasters in Nigeria, the tarsands and the Gulf – and our culture's ongoing denial about the blood, guts and ecological disaster swirling around in our need for this fix – was this a good intervention or not? Was it violent?

It was definitely disruptive. It clearly has economic impact. It did damage.

Oh pity the poor mom and pop oil franchisee trying to make a living.  What about them, shouldn't they have the right to get in on the carbon action while the game lasts?    

I still think it would do us well to differentiate between "violence" and "vandalism"...we shouldn't use the language of the media/authority to define ourselves.

And on the subject of mom and pop places getting trashed along with starbucks and banks, let's keep in mind that a whole bunch of non BB hooligans with no political stance decided to jump in and start destroying stuff as well, hence the "10 most wanted" list put out by police, most of whom looked like they had nothing to do with BB or protest.  there were confrontations with BB telling people to not smash the non chain stores.

But i must say i was glad to see the strip club get it.

I think this property destruction is a reflection of the complete lack of hope for any kind of change, let alone effective change, young people are likely to see in their lifetimes.  They've seen that peaceful protest only works in select circumstances and never in regards to major issues such as wars, economic matters etc.  And they see the complete lack of interest from the "general population" in getting involved, as well as the complete whitewash of every major issue that goes on in the media.

Seems the same equation at work in most conflict zones.  The less hope there is, the more aggressive the reaction, sometimes leading to actual violence.

Excellent post Milo

@ Cueball

Re: #32 #37

If you don't recognize that physical violence and destruction have a distinct and strong affect on people, even people who witness it, then you need to accept that I do. Trying to frame it in some kind of theoretical comparison doesn't water it down, and neither does invoking examples of people who have been driven to acts of violent resistance by necessity. I am sorry, but it is a sad comparison.

Go back and read what I said at #6. That's where my support for others' means of protest ends.

@ everyone:

Two points that are the bottom line for me:

Using someone else as the example for your moral teaching moment is sheer hypocrisy, because we all benefit from this system. You want to make a statement against capitalist materialism, maybe you should start by piling your computer, appliances, clothes and other luxury items out in the street and burning them before expecting someone else to foot the bill.

To actually WANT violence, to desire the horrible things that people have had to resort to in other parts of the world is sheer madness, and if you had a taste of what it is like to be in a part of the world where things truly are out of control you would realize how foolish and arrogant it is. It wouldn't be us who would really suffer. It would be children, families, old people, and others who are not so able-bodied and can't get out of the way. Once you open that door you cannot predict what might come through it. Yes violence has played a role in some liberation struggles, But I don't think anyone who has been through something like that would do it if there were any other option.

And for every ANC resistance there is a Rote Armee Fraction, which did nothing but give government an excuse to bring in repressive laws and punish the entire country for their antics. Try wearing a mask in Germany, 40 years later.

Sorry. I don't want to offend or make assumptions about what other people have experienced, and excuse me if I am showing my anger, but this is serious business, and I wonder if some people appreciate that.

I like Strip Clubs.

Anyways....

It's funny to hear people say we live in a Democracy and that Democracy rule is the accepted way. When has the working class ever experienced Democracy?

There are levels of democracy.  If you measure from some absolute standard, there is a long way to go.  If you measure from where we've been, that's also a long distance.

The British action and the BP action are pretty good, as far as theatre goes.  Focused, to the point, not hijackable, not stepping on somebody else's action, good  communication strategy, in the British case, obvious courage.  None of that was present in Toronto.

Most of us are not facing anything like the level of oppression that people are citing above, FNs are the only local exception, and even there, things seem to be better than they were (at least that's what I see, I stand to be corrected on this point).  Comparing the Yonge Street smashup to Umkonte We Sizwe is really embarrassing. 

All of the successful organizations cited above were deeply integrated into their communities.  We are not in a position where that is a feasible or necessary strategy today.

jroothham:

What do you mean there are levels of Democracy? It sounds like you are saying some people have Democracy and others do not.

Why in any way, would I accept that?

What do you mean by "where we've been"?

Are you saying that at one time we had no rights and now we do? That some how before was worse then today? It what ways? Medican, technology?

This whole thread lays that argument useless.

This thread is about working class tactics in it's fight for freedom. Some think that force is the way forward and others think it is not.

We live in a society that is divided up into classes. Meaning that there is no Democracy.

People can not be divided into classes and also have Democracy at the same time. it's impossible.

The whole nature of class means some are advantaged at the expence of others. How is that Democracy?

Man, where do I start?

Democracy is a description of a political/economic system. The question is who has power and how is it exercised. In representative democracy the question is who has the vote and how effectively can they use it.

Democracy is not a binary object. It's not true that if a system is not perfectly deomcratic it's not democratic at all.

Some political systems are more democratic than others.  They vary in who can vote. They vary in the effectiveness of voting.  The more people who can vote and the more effective that voting is the more democratic the system is.

"Where we've been" refers to our historical past.

See here. Yes, once upon a time (and not so long ago as that) things were worse, now they are better. Possibly not good, but better.

Class issues damage democracy, they do not destroy it.

Jrootham:

I can see what you mean in a sense, that it was considered "democracy" when women/FN couldn't even vote etc.  But when you think of the long and often violent struggle against the ruling elite (who knows how many activists were killed, regardless it;s alot!) we seem to be getting lazy and complacent as a society, and most are scared to even speak out, let alone act.  As a result, we're now loosing some of the democratic gains that people died and struggled for over the course of history.  probably because we're so comfy enjoying the benefits of exploitation.

when i look at democratic movements in other parts of the world, people are more than willing to be tortured, put in jail and killed just to stand up for their rights and democracy.  Here, not so much.

Well I think the number of people marching on the Sunday and Monday after the G20 provides evidence against that statement.

The difference between other places and here is not the people willing to protest, but the unwillingness of the state to take repressive measures.  That's why the events of the G20 were a a surprise.  They were outside the expected norms in this country.

The era of initiating tangible social change through peaceful marches is over, and has been for awhile.  For the most part, those who continue to deny the obvious in this regard, despite alarming and mounting evidence to the contrary, can be found applying to the state in protest by positioning themselves in officially sanctioned zones surrounded by security forces, zones which are nothing more than urban open air prisons where the inmates are at the whim of club wielding thugs with badges.  The police were just as violent in Seattle and Quebec City a decade ago, and at UBC with pepper spray and batons against peaceful protestors during the APEC summit in 1997, as they recently were in Toronto.

I am glad JR that things are better now in your world.  Yes if your are part of the privileged Canada can be an exceptionally great country.  Maybe its age but I remember when we had no beggars in our streets and we were proud of it.  I remember when food banks were considered a temporary measure to get through a brief economic downturn.  How often to you stand in food bank lines.  How often do police harass you for being poor and on the streets?  Me they don't harass much and I don't have to stand in food bank lines but I know many people who do not have the privilege of saying that.

To highlight the difference in propaganda and the real world I noticed a date for the Japanese vote.  In 1949 they gave Japanese Canadians (people who had lived in Canada for generations including WWI vets) the right to vote.  They also in the same year sold all the possessions of the Japanese that thad been confiscated.  Land, boats, businesses on the auction block and this after the war ended.

As noted above and as I have said repeatedly the bb emerged as a result of police violence against peaceful demonstrators. I was in Vancouver for the APEC summit and protests and people like you decried the people sitting down in the streets so dictators could not pass.  They were supposed to stand in silent vigil on the sides of the road.  The media screamed about the people disrupting traffic etc. etc. and some of the people who stood on the side of the road were arrested as well as the sit down protesters who were pepper sprayed and beaten for their audacity. 

JR how long have you been actively demonstrating?  Maybe that is the difference.  I have been in the streets over various issues for at least thirty years and in that time our society is getting meaner and uglier for the marginalized.  I get really angry when people advocate that the only way to speak to the ruling class is with cap in hand begging from a fenced in safe protest zone.  You may see democracy in that model I don't.

Canadian Dimension's Sept/Oct editorial is on blac bloc tactics, diversity of tactics, and the G20 protests:

Once more around the Bloc: tactics, democracy, and mass politics

Good to see you here again rasmus.

Those who feel they have all the time in the world to continue sleepwalking their way toward progressive change, just as they always have, tend to view the issues at hand through the rose coloured lenses of relative security and privilege.

Welcome as always, rasmus! And thanks for posting that article. Although I must say I have a real problem with "critiquing" or "debating" the tactics of a handful of individuals whose only importance to the mass movement is in the eyes of the police and the MSM - because of the role they play in sabotaging that movement. It really is time to make the divorce public and take measures to ensure they don't come hanging around the house any more.

That is a superb editorial, rasmus. Thank you.

Which mass movement are you referring to Unionist?  The one that politely appeals to the rigged system which sent police into the streets to beat and arrest people, or the one that negotiates its way into a lifestyle which renders inconvenient any further momentum which may benefit millions of workers consigned to poverty wages within multi-billion dollar profit companies?  What exactly is being threatened with sabotage?

I haven't been too impressed with Canadian Dimension of late but that was a very good editorial. The point about liberal individualism is all too rarely made. 

Yup, those are the ones. Plus, you know, the women's thing, the solidarity things, those environmental ones, the anti-poverty ones... you know, all those dead-end do-nothing types who just haven't got the guts to pick up a rock, smash a coffee-shop window, and run away. Those are exactly the ones I mean, SJ.

But don't be too too surprised when, the next time those polite Canadian-style masses take to the streets, the vandals and arsonists don't even show up. They'll be too busy running food banks, and organizing sports for poor kids, or whatever other really really nice activities have been attributed to them by some on this board. Why? Because those polite masses will not tolerate the sabotage any longer. Toronto was the turning point. Put it in your diary.

I'm so disappointed at the demographic here @ rabble.  Sorry.  Where can the marginalized have a voice?  And I'm not one of them, I'm extremely privileged and perhaps that's where my concern comes from.  Perhaps I/we should have to work a little harder for our brothers/sisters.  I'll do my best.

jrootham:

You are just spining in your own retoric.

Lets see....

democracy  (dɪˈmɒkrəsɪ)

— n  , pl -cies

1.
government by the people or their elected representatives

2.
a political or social unit governed ultimately by all its members

3.
the practice or spirit of social equality

4.
a social condition of classlessness and equality

5.

the common people, esp as a political force

Ok then...

#1 Canadain Government run by the Conservatives that represent 25% of population. Nope no Democracy there.

#2 Nope not there either.

#3 Nope not there.

#4 Can't find that in Canada as well.

#5 Yup you guessed it not this one either.

So there you have it. Canada has none of the conditions spelled out in the definition of Democracy. So of course this is a free country, as they tell us. So you can beleive what ever you want including secret tiny people living under rocks. As they do in Ice Land.

Try not to listen to the people that object to the BB. The Liberal Left of Canada has been trying to ride itself of any and all militancy in it's ranks.

They are reformists by nature. It is not their wish to change the Capitalists system. They just want to make it more pleasing. But their ideas do not work. Capitalism does not work well, under heavy regulations and no profits.

Though it is more then obvious that violence will turn the fence sitters against you and help the ruling class bring in more anti workers laws, it is important for the ruling class to undersand that we mean business.

I don't think you can possibly know who here is or is not marginalized, how, or to what extent. People sometimes mention things about their lives but most people don't give a lot of detail (wisely, I think). 

Respectfully, I'm fully confident in my ability to deduct that the babble demographic are not the clients I serve everyday.  With small exceptions...possibly...