Violence or property damage at protests

Property damage was very much an issue at the recent demo against police brutality in Montreal. These acts did accompany - indeed follow - an extensive amount of police provocation, abusive arrests, that ended up making the protestors' point about a recent rise in police brutality - to the point of outright murder of innocent citizens. 

So it's a complex dynamic where, in the end, one needs to question notions such as the words "us" "our movements" that bracket Judy's post and may end up reflecting "natural" leaders' alleged owning of a movement. 

Affirming the diversity of the movement(s) and even minority positions within it can too easily be sidelined by such leaders' implicit appeals to a statu quo that hides the systemic, covered-up violence of people in uniform or 3-piece suits.

I went to a protest a few years ago for Kanonhstaton near Caledonia that was held at Queens Park. Though the action that was taken was not violent and not property damage it was known when one of the protestors announced he was going to try add the Unity Flag to the flag at Queens Park it would provoke the police into action.

I thought it was handled very well. After the protestor announced he was going to do this an elder objected and a circle was formed for anyone who wanted to talk. People went around and it was decided after everyone talked that because there were children and out of respect for the people who had organized the demonstration - of whom the particular protestor was not a part of but had been invited by them - that he would wait until the demonstration had finished and anyone wishing to stay in support would wait until those who did not want to participate.

There were a dozen of us left to stand in support and witness what happened,which I am sure everyone can guess.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/01/g20-protest-violence-police 

I completely agree with Judy Rebick on this. 

Here's another recent Canadian example:

In the midst of the peaceful blockades in 2007 and 2008 by Algonquins and their supporters against uranium mining in eastern Ontario some nob(s) thought it would be cool to plant a firebomb at the office of Frontenac Ventures Corp., the mining company.  This childish "action" was universally condemned by all those who were doing the hard work on the blockades and other protest and legal actions to stop mining.  It is difficult to imagine any action which would be more effective in helping the mining industry to undermine the non-violent protest movement than planting a bomb.  The net result is to frighten many people away from the protests and allow the mining industry to depict themselves as the poor victims of violent, destructive extremists.  Not to mention giving the OPP a rationale that they wouldn't otherwise have had to wiretap activists' phones and conduct other forms of aggressive surveillance.  Certainly made me wonder if maybe the bomb was planted by agents provocateurs for the industry.

My argument in support of applied or tactical or strategic violence is to compare the "cost" of a broken window at a fast food chain or a bank (I don't support throwing rocks into the windows or otherwise damaging the property of small single-owner businesses or residential homes) to the cost of anti-human violence conducted by the police and other state agents against entire populations in Canada.

"Violence" is defined in very particular ways. My question is why are certain individual acts of violence decried and criminalized, and other ongoing day-to-day acts of violence perpetuated by the Canadian state, both in Canada and across the globe (Afghanistan) are deemed okay?

Sadly, that's a rhetorical question.

I respect Judy's voice and her position in the left, but I one point I do strongly object to is her characterizing the black bloc as being typically violent. This is how they are characterized in the MSM and I'm sad to see Judy buy into the rhetoric.  

I'm interested in reading more in this thread as the discussion progresses. 

Joey's post highlights the elitism of the left, in which is it usually the "good" left trying to righteously distance themselves from the "bad" left (kinda like the whole "deserving" poor and "undeserving" poor)

Check out Joey's language.

1: ..."nob(s) thought it would be cool..." (do you mean nOOb, or someone "new" to the movememt? Can you explain why someone new to the movement would be more likely to use diversity of tactics or are you making a stereotype assuming either new protesters are stupid or veteran protesters would never engage in such acts?)

2: Joey also calls demonstators' "childish"

And also Judy Rebick's language as she refers to such protester's as "yahoos"

Such labels are dismissive and divisive and show a snobbery and a lack of respect for people's ability to chose for themselves and their choice of using certain tactics -- which they have personally chosen.

Now, this choice might piss someone else off, but you shouldn't be allowed to run your mouth because of it....there is a different between a constructive arguement for/against versus being dismissive and elitist. No one controls the left in so much as they can police the left or determine what actions are "right" or "wrong".

I was at the 2001 anti-FTAA protests in Québec city as a peaceful protester. The large majority were peaceful, however the Black Bloc were definitely not. I was very close to them and witnessed their tactics -which quite frankly made me very angry. I though it was profoundly unfair that their actions were what was going to make the news (this is the media's fault as well obviously). It is quite possible to decry police brutality (of which there was much in Québec; I had a friend who was an exch. student from Columbia who was nearly deported) and decry protester violence.

 Distinguising between breaking windows of one business versus another one is also irrelevant. Often franchise chains are owned locally. Breaking windows and destroying property is not the way to fight these chains/banks/businesses whose practices we disagree with. It is just pointless wanton destruction - especially at a time when the taxpayer is providing a lot of corporate welfare for these companies.

 Great piece by Rebick. It is very frustrating when a peaceful protest is derailed by yahoos after organizers have worked hard at bringing many groups together.

Statica said:

  "Joey's post highlights the elitism of the left, in which is it usually the "good" left trying to righteously distance themselves from the "bad" left (kinda like the whole "deserving" poor and "undeserving" poor)

Check out Joey's language.

1: ..."nob(s) thought it would be cool..." (do you mean nOOb, or someone "new" to the movememt? Can you explain why someone new to the movement would be more likely to use diversity of tactics or are you making a stereotype assuming either new protesters are stupid or veteran protesters would never engage in such acts?)"

No, I didn't mean "noob" as in "new"; I meant "nob" or "knob" as in "jerk".   How is it elitist to say that people who want to support a protest should respect the consensus of those who worked very hard to organize a strictly non-violent protest, and the hundreds of people who have participated in a completely non-violent protest largely because it is non-violent protest?  Who is the elitist - the one who respects the decision of the Algonquins that there will be no violence or property damage, or the nob who thinks s/he knows better and decides to bomb a building?

Hmm...

If someone makes the choice to throw rocks or damange stuff, that's their choice, and it might piss someone off.

If someone makes the choice to say they disagree with such a choice, then they shouldn't be allowed to run their mouths because of it?

I respect your position on this issue (more than I did in 2001, btw) ;) but I think it's just as legitimate for people to talk about such action and oppose such action as it is for others to engage in such actions.   

I think I agree with Judy on this one, though.  I understand the difference in magnitude between breaking the window of a fast food chain and the violence of the state when it comes to poverty and police action and all that.  But still, I don't really feel like violence and destruction is the answer.

Of course, then again, when Jose Bove "deconstructed" that McDonald's, that was a pretty amazing action.  But I would say that's different because it was a group of people who decided that the entire action they were going to take would be to dismantle the construction that was going up.  That to me is different than a few people taking it upon themselves to go to a vastly peaceful protest and start smashing things without any consultation from the rest of the protesters or the organizers.

I have to say its obvious Judy is out of her depth in that piece. From her assessment of the black bloc I suspect she's never taken the time to speak with any of them. Anyway, violence and property damage are very different things and the anonymous protestor quoted in the Guardian piece in Judy's story had it right:

Joey, I am referencing the G20 protests, and I am not sure what you are suggesting, other than putting up a poster for a large, public anti-glob demo and stating only certain groups are invited and excluding others?

What if members of the excluded group show up anyway, does someone from the original group then step up and act as a police or bouncer and turn them away? Ask them to leave? Forcable eject them? Hand them over the the police as a pre-emtive strike against any demonstrator who might look like "a troublemaker"?

No one should be allowed to crash someone else's party...that's why the concept of diversity of tactics is so important. No one says you can't have two simultaneous protests happening in two different parts of the same city on the same day, with diverse missions/statements. One is not bad and the other is good, simply because someone moans that one actions might "steal the thunder" from the other, or "steal" the media's focus.

I'm suggesting that constructive dialogue where both sides are allowed to present their opinions regarding tactics and where no side is belittled or dismissed would be better (belittled either by being called reformist or called violent yahoos).

Of course, the nature and flow and background to a protest should be respected, even more so in smaller, more "intimate" actions.

But if people want to make sweeping negative generalizations about "violent" uprisings because of their own morality, then they might as well re-write all of history while they are at it.

I was also at the Summit of the Americas in 2001 as a (mostly) peaceful protestor. I was thankful for the actions of the black bloc at these protests. The violence they metted out was nothing in comparison to the violence employed by the police, generally against the more peaceful protestors, as one poster mentioned in the previous thread. The police appeared downright afraid of the black bloc and focused on abusing peacefully protesting teenagers and families; I can give two personal accounts where the actions of the black bloc actually saved peaceful protestors from harm/arrest at these protests. The media write us off anyway, I spoke with the CNN crew covering the event at the time; their misrepresentation started long before the oh-so-terrible acts of violence by the dispossessed and oppressed. Black bloc folks I know are the lowest of low-income workers, if not on the street themselves (and some are); they have nothing to lose and they put themselves on the line for those of us who do. Show some gratitude you yahoos

There are occasionally a few who use violence in a disorganized way without consultation however they aren't the majority of those who employ violence in protest actions. In my experience violent protestors such as the black bloc groups are well coordinated and plan their actions in advance, consulting with other protest organizers. They still use violence however, so for those who say "consult" but mean "unconditionally accept the liberal sentiments of other groups organizing protests" then there will still be some disappointed liberals in the crowd, or staying at home instead.

Is taking  violent aim at capitalist structures any different than  violently opposing an occupation ie. Gaza or West Bank?

Good question, Caissa, and to ask it in another way: Is the violence of the state so legitimized that any non-state violence in an organized way, even symbolic violence at a protest that doesn't cause death or harm to people, seen as always being not legitimate? So the structures of oppression that violently affect people's lives every day here in Canada, for example, must be met with politeness and reasonableness, always? 

I wonder what those who commit  property damage think they are accomplishing. They give the TV networks shots they seem to be interested in them.  There was a shot last night with a guy with a cut on his head, blood flowing down into eyes. "If it bleeds, it leads."

Another thing, they allow the media to focus on them, rather than the issues they bring.  In the nuclear disarmament movement we had in Canada a small offshoot of the Committee of 100, who engaged in peaceful civil disobedience. In so doing, we had television shots of the messages on our signs, and those messages had no other media coverage except through peaceful demonstration.  I've seen few shots of messages from these demos. The camera has focussed on people smashing windows, and trying to break through police lines.

 The establishment isn't afraid of getting a few windows smashed. The corporations don't care if some cops have a difficult shift.

The only persons who have accomplished anything in these "hey look at me I'm being kick-ass rebellious" faction of the demos are those cops who infiltrate and play agents provocateurs. They've helped obscure its message.

Thank you Maysie for phrasing the questions so aptly.

In response to the thread title question: I choose violence.

Seriously, though, it's true that violence and property damage are counterproductive to the effective conduct of a demonstration, and ought to be discouraged. This is one reason why having numerous and well-trained parade marshals is so important.

But the real threat of violence always comes from the cops. They never have to worry about whether gassing, shoving, or clubbing demonstrators is counterproductive to the cause of maintaining the social status quo. The media will always side with them and blame the victims. By failing to acknowledge the real source of violence, Judy's comment lacks balance and perspective.

The police in London were spoiling for a fight. Their tactics were confrontational from the outset, and the demonstrators on the whole showed remarkable restraint in the face of police bullying and beating.

I'd like to see Judy directing some anger where it really belongs.

Good post M Spector.

Could you give me a quick listing of what non-violent demonstrations on these same topics (anti-globalization for example, or police violence) have accomplished? Just so we can compare...

I think Judy's comments are naive and simplistic.

I think it's naive because regardless of intent the police will provoke violence as the piece Frustrated Mess posted. I don't think that responding to provactive violence of the state or even being prepared to respond should be vilified.

I also think it is naive to believe that if only we protests were sufficiently peaceful the media is going to be somehow sympathetic any kind of direct action is going to be overplayed and characterized as "violent".

I agree with Maysie that it is even more problematic in terms of the discourse around violence and what is constituted as violent. I do not think that actions against corperate or state property are acts of violence. Not only does it lend its self to propagating a belief in the santity of private property, such a discourse also tends to downplay the insidious nature and mechanisms corporate/state power and its expression of violence. Futhermore it lends itself  to a particular belief towards acceptable responses to violence, those who are victims of state/corporate violence are expected to respond calmly and passively, victims responding  to violence in kind are characterized as problematic. I think it is necessary to have broader discussions concerning the meaning of and expressions and mechanisms of violence that exist. A simplistic response merely reinforces the status quo. I was in Quebec in 2001 and I seem to recall Maude Barlow actually did validate the anger and frustration of the so called "violent" protesters.

Martin also makes a good point about "whose" protest is it? I am certainly not going to put myself in a position of judging marginalized groups response to state violence.

Just some quick thoughts from someone who actually personally considers themselves non-violent.

Those are good points, about how state-sponsored violence is considered legitimate and any kind of fight back is not.   I agree with this.  I also think that people who are against using violence are not necessarily refusing to direct anger at the authorities over state violence.  It would be hard to argue that Judy doesn't denounce state violence when she takes actions like occupying the Israeli consulate.

Isn't there something to be said for the pragmatic argument against violence?  It's true, the media will always focus on violence at a protest if there is any.  Always, always.  We can rant about the biased media, but we could also choose not to feed them with such images to begin with.  Same with police violence and tear gas.  If there is no violence or rock throwing and the cops STILL throw tear gas at thousands of protesters, then at least the media and the police aren't being handed the gift of images of rock-throwing, window-smashing protesters to help them in their attempt to justify such police thuggery in the court of public opinion.

Sure.  The peaceful anti-war protests in Canada against the war in Iraq that were tens of thousands strong (in 2003, I think) arguably influenced Chretien to keep our country out of the Iraq war. 

But the anti-war protests which employed "violent" tactics were a complete failure? Presumably resulting in Canada going to war in Iraq?

I'm having a hard time understanding how you know which protests were successful when there are always a variety of tactics employed in any major protest campaign.

I can tell you that peaceful anti-war protests failed to stop the war in Kosovo, or the war in Afghanistan. Though violent tactics also failed.

Then the media will show footage of crowds fleeing from the police, mention the unspecified violent nature of the protest (without attribution to the police) and you'll still end up right where you were, only the police enjoy a free ride when beating non-violent protestors.

I don't understand what you're asking.  You asked for an example of a peaceful protest that accomplished something.  I gave you one.   Now you're telling me that there are so many other peaceful protests that failed. 

Well, yeah.  Protests really don't do much, usually, except register dissent.  I suppose you could say that if that's the only goal of a protest, then destruction is just as good a way of registering dissent as peaceful protest.  But I think it matters, how the general public perceives the protest.  You may disagree with me on that, and that's okay too.

Certainly there is. I think the only real argument against it is pragmatic. But the problem with pragmatic arguments is that you have to get your facts straight. To suggest, as Judy does, that police violence in the G20 protests was a reaction to violence on the part of a few demonstrators ("the police almost always over-react") is to turn the matter on its head.

Michelle,

I 'm sorry if my intent was hard to understand, I was responding to a charge by Banjo that violent tactics in protest actions never accomplish anything. I was hoping he would contrast that with non-violent protests which accomplish something; you did and hence proved my point that whether or not any protests accomplish anything is debatable, and determining whether violent or non-violent tactics in a specific campaign resulted in its success or faillure is impossible. Your example of the war in Iraq is perfect, as there were protest actions of all variety; its impossible to say whether the violent or non-violent tactics were more effective. The idea that non-violent tactics are more effective is a myth; at best an unprovable assertion.

ETA: the point of the failled examples is to demonstrate that, no mater which tactics are employed, protests either succeed or fail on other merits, not on the basis of violence=non-violence. Would that things were so easy!

 It does. I've seen it happen both inside and outside the media. So standing around peacefully blocking a road, or blocking something turns into a discourse about people perpetrating 'economic violence' or 'violence' against other peoples rights to move around freely or some airy fairy concept that takes protesting into the area that it's  in and of itself a violent act because it scares people because heck it COULD end up getting violent. 

This thread is interesting. It raises the question "What is the purpose of a protest?' I'd presume the answer in any given case should be what drives the tactics employed.

I have to agree with NRKissed and the others, that Judy is a little waif on this topic and the people who make up the black bloc being more than stereotypes...

one thing, too, about dialogue among protesters/the left...so much effort is taken to condemn any diversity of tactics that include violence and i think that distracts from the really needed discussion about POLICE BEHAVIOUR and the VIOLENCE they prepetuate AGAINST US at demos...i mean, we should be taking about the police's use of tasers and that new sound weapon they have.

That is a good point; and what if different groups involved in organizing protests have different purposes in mind for the action? 

That Ghandi...he never accomplished a damn thing. He really should have thrown a few rocks and smashed some windows...now there's a winning strategy!

 I think one thing that is missing from this discussion is the fact that people (of various classes/groups etc./) work in these targeted buildings. Throwing a rock and smashing stuff may only have an intention of property damage, but it also may end up hurting someone and be violent.

And, yes the RCMP as a whole, and other orgs like the OPP have been oppressive, violent, etc. But each police officer is an individual from various backgrounds. I hope no one here is condoning violence against them.

I agree with you about that, ElizaQ.  And I think people who are against destruction or violence at protests make a distinction between that and blocking roads or railroad tracks.  Certainly I do.

I also agree with you about calling destruction of property "violence".  I personally think that's kind of a sloppy construction, which is why I try (now I'd better check my previous posts) to call it what it is - assaults on people are "violence" (e.g. rock throwing) and assaults on property or buildings is "damage" or "destruction".  Sorry if I wrote anything sloppy above. 

Someone mentioned violent resistance to occupation, which I assume they were referring to Palestinians resisting to Israeli occupation since that's the usual debate that happens on babble.  I wouldn't dream of telling Palestinians (or Iraqis or Afghanis) how to resist the occupation of their countries.  I also wouldn't tell First Nations people in Canada how to resist the occupation of their lands here.  

I think there's a difference between looking at your own movement critically, and being critical of the struggles of other people.

Or do the "organizers" of the protest have the right to direct the "protesters"?

Does talking about one mean you can't talk about the other? 

You are doing violence to the English language.

Violence is not solely a matter of personal injury. A person can be violent without anyone getting hurt - indeed, without any property being damaged. But wilful property damage is certainly "violence", even if nobody gets hurt.

Violence at protests is useless bourgeious theater. Those "black block" yodelheads haven't figured out that the state loves it when they start breaking stuff, for a couple of reasons.

First, it gives them the propaganda they need to paint all opposition as merely a few crackpots and not worthy of serious consideration.

Secondly, and most importantly, the state uses protests as a safety valve where opposition can vent harmlessly and in a controlled manner. The protesters feel good about themselves (despite achieving nothing whatsoever), the violent ones feel that they established their revolutionary cred, and the police can bust heads with impunity. The elites simply carry on, secure in the knowledge that they face no real or effective opposition to their aganda.

If those nitwits who think throwing bricks will have any effect, they are as deluded as those liberals who think they can work "within the system" for real progressive change.

If revolutionary violence is to have an effect, it has to target those institutions and people who run the apparatus of the state. That fact is that these institutions and people remain untouched and unpreturbedby the embarrassing impotence of the protest hooligan.

Could be, M. Spector. I can see a good argument for that position from a feminist perspective, for instance. Certainly any woman who has been in an abusive marriage knows that smashing things and destroying her belongings can be violent. And I can see where smashing windows in a protest could be considered pretty scary by some participants, not to mention the people in the buildings (not all of whom are millionaire bankers or chain store owners).

I do think that some distinction should be made, though, between violence against people and destruction of property.

Frankly, I do not believe that any great change will occur until people get extremely violent. Not that I want to see this happen, but in looking through history, social change to empower those in virtual slavery by those that have, has only come about through the use of violence. It seems  working towards social equality and justice is NOT taken seriously until that happens.

In today's world, just as it was during the Draft Riots,  the upper middle class have just as much to fear, as those who are the "elite" when those in virtual slavery, and those who are home dispossessed, have had enough. They benefit just as much from the exploitation and dispossession of others, as do the so called 'elite'. Unfortunately, the extremely marginalized  may also bear the brunt of the wrath, just as they did during the Draft Riots2 [41] too.

The only way I can see to circumvent the eventual violence, is for the workers of the world to have a massive strike until the needs of those most hurt by the capitalist system are met, and/or social justice is understood to be the only way. Unless the working masses become unified in endeavors, instead of worrying about their puny position in the scheme of  capitalist,  and inherited wealth exploitation, there will eventually be massive violence towards all those that appear to have. And I can't say that I think those who have no other option would be wrong.

I agree that a distinction between violence and property damage needs to be made. Especially given that our justice system gives harsher sentence often for property damage than for violence against women.

"Violence" doesn't depend on the subjective reaction to it by an observer. It doesn't matter whether anyone is "scared" by it. A person locked up alone in a room can be violent without anybody witnessing it - indeed, without leaving any evidence of it at all.

This is why I say the only argument against violence in a demonstration is a pragmatic one.

Any times I've heard arguments from either side, they seem to revolve around effectiveness, with both sides arguing that the other has been proven ineffective.

This, to me, is like arguing whether aspirin, or vitamin C, is better at curing terminal cancer.  Ideally, we'd recognize that neither is really all that effective at curing terminal cancer.  But how perverse would it be if the "aspirin" proponents made their entire case out of the fact that "vitamin C has been shown to be useless, time and time again" and the vitamin C proponents' rebuttal was "then show us just one time that asprin cured cancer!"

I'm sure this will prove an unpopular sentiment, but I personally believe that most uncoordinated, individual violence or destruction really has little to do with "the cause", and lots to do with individuals feeling empowered, or letting off steam or impressing their friends.  Sorry.  But I just can't believe that when some dude takes it upon himself to smash a Starbucks window he's motivated more by a desire to contribute usefully to the cause than he is by an opportunity to have himself a moment. 

 No apologies necessary. I wasn't commenting on that distinction. In fact I missed that until you pointed it out.   I was mainly just commenting about how I've seen  discourse about protests being 'violent' or what is actually violence change or get scewed as being violent whether they are or not, sometimes with a lot of idiotic mental gymastics.  I have read about anti-war marches or tuition fee marches through the streets of a downtown city being 'violent' because they hamper the economy because they block or hamper people from doing their jobs.   It's silly I know but I guess my point relating to what NRKISSED comments is that people and sometimes media will go to idiotic extremes to paint a peaceful protest as 'violent' no matter what you do.   Of course if they agree with what is being protested that's a whole other story.  

Well, that is twice now today that I have agreed with you then. Amazing, actually. ;)

I don't know how unpopular it is, it seems the thread's split about 50/50. It is ignorant however, in my opinion, and shows very little understanding of both the level of organization which goes into most "violent" protest tactics, and the actual people who carry out these "violent" acts. I'm not about to repeat all my earlier posts on the subject but your condescension towards these people is misplaced; in my experience their motivation is rarely destructive and almost never self-agrandizing. Most of the activists I have known who embraced violent tactics come from marginalized and dispossed backgrounds (many being street people); most have been the victims (in many cases lifelong) of systemic and institutionalized violence. They don't take violence lightly.

"Gandhi taught us not to use violence,"

Violence from us has no place

Then comes the black bloc, that anonymous band of people who think they can spark a revolution by breaking a few windows and things turn nasty.

Violence has no place in our movements.

I've picked out these quotes from Judy Rebick's article to ask a question:

Who is "us"? Who is the "our" who claim to own the movements?

Do the (mostly) middle class protestors have a right to dictate to the lowest low income protestors, who may have very different experiences (eg, with cops)?

I tend to think of police as not the target as they are just doing their jobs, and decry those who make trouble for the police (and thus for the rest of us). Would I feel the same if I didn't have a stable home and income, and lived hand-to-mouth, constantly harassed by police in my daily life?

Nope. I'd likely also be flinging bricks and making life as difficult as I could for the police ... I think.

I think what I'm saying is I'm a bit disturbed by what I see as the 'elitist' attitude in that article.

The social justice movement belongs to no one group, least of all those of us who lead comfy lives that allow us the luxury of belonging to organizations and movements, and spending hours discussing issues, imo.

I've never participated in property destruction (that I recall) and I agree with others who say calling it "violence" is unnecessarily inflammatory.

I would distinguish between planned actions that make a specific point - eg against an aggressive capitalist institution -  and out-of-control riots that pay no attention to whose property is being damaged. However, I recognize that the latter usually develop in response to overly aggressive police actions, so I'm not totally condeming those actions either, unless they occur without police provocation.

Planned actions - such as the deconstruction of a McDonald's - truly appeal to me. I admit a fondness too for the hit-and-run anarchists in BC who consecutively threw bricks through the windows of some major financial establishments. The message was very clean and clear, and even the media got it right!

This could be a case of the blind men and the elephant, then, because my primary exposure to the mindset of some protesters came from reading their posts at various left wing sites.  For the most part, the people flipping cars, breaking windows at the McDonald's or defacing the Toronto Sun boxes seemed pretty pleased with themselves, and definitely in "boast" mode.  That their buddies would chime in with high-fives and whoo-hoos only supported the idea that these were unplanned, uncoordinated impulse actions that provided them with a sense of importance.

Missing entirely was any kind of analysis of strategies, outcomes or optics, unless someone criticized these actions, in which case the typical response was "don't tell me what to do, sell-out!"

Personally, while I wouldn't say that I *like* destruction, if it really is the result of some genuine community consensus (and I don't mean a community of 3 individuals, or a community of only Bloc members) then I'm happy to consider it on its own merits.  Violence (against people) I can't justify any more than I could justify vigilantism. 

Great post saga! I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Snert,

I'm not sure what to say about your experience in Toronto, hopefully one of the many Torontonian Babblers here will have something to add.

In my experience in Halifax your last paragraph is a better discriptor of reality: the "violent" tactics of property destruction arise from the lived experience of the community, like saga was commenting on above. Communities which are fighting for their very existance daily; and for whom there is no ally in the system (the police in particular).

"Communities which are fighting for their very existance daily; and for whom there is no ally in the system"

Excellent point, and very true.

I'm not saying anything against people who choose to be non-violent(being one), I respoect Judy for what she does. I am however arguing against the actions of some people are being portrayed and condemned. Judy seems to be arguing that the only legitimate response to state/corporate violence is stoic non-violence. Does this mean that if you or your friends loved ones are attacked by police than the only way to respond is allowing yourself to be brutalized? I think there is a problem in which certain responses are being portrayed or characterized as just a bunch of yahoos getting their kicks by fighting cops or breaking stuff. I'm willing to admit that might be the motivation of some. Others are just responding to provocation in the moment, some come prepared to respond to police violence as well.

I also think one can be overly concerned about the media and the court of public opinion which is mediated. I am thinking of the miners strike in the UK in the 80's in which there was violence(condemned by the media) but the strike still mobilized strong popular support.

Thanks D! Yes, we seem to be on the same wavelength.

I've had the opportunity to learn from some seasoned veterans of social action who, though they may not approve some of the actions of the anarchists, always speak respectfully of their right to do as they see fit, drawing the line at personal violence, of course.

Of course, another issue has arisen at times if the more 'active' say they are doing it on behalf of someone else who may not appreciate the negative attention. As long as they have their focus on an issue of their own and don't claim to speak/act for someone else, I think we have to respect their rights too.

Again, I think we have to be careful about applying our middle class judgment to people who may have very different life experiences than we do.

I've had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with poor people

I'm not sure its exactly what you mean but what sprang to mind was demonstrations against police brutality. Although themselves carried out almost universally by the victims of police brutality (because by and large no one else cares) they do not always take the form all victims of police brutality would choose. Since they invariably invite even worse from the cops; they can have serious reprecusions on a community, many members of which might have elected to avoid drawing attention (both good and bad) to the issue.

 In the context of street demonstrations, violence and most property damage is either pointless or counter productive.

But violence against tyranny is not a choice, it is an obligation.

But, it's like anger.  It's unusual that it's directed properly, and is visited on the appropriate person(s).

More often, it is the threat of violence that is a more productive weapon.

You think I joke, but you all know that if Judy Rebick and other notables on the left started telling everyone on the left to aquire rifles, not only would the Conservatives withdraw the legislation to end the long gun registry, they'd recall the troops from Afghanistan to go on house to house searches for weapons their new and speedy legislation banned the possession of.

In his 2008 book Violence, Slavoj Žižek posits the theory that there are two kinds of violence: subjective violence, violent acts that incite our subjective outrage and ire; and objective or ’systemic’ violence,  the necessary violence that sustains liberal capitalist hegemony. More importantly, acts of subjective violence—the suicide bomber, the school shooting, particularly violent video games, movies or books—blind us to the systemic, endemic violence in which we are complicit. Žižek writes:

No, I don't have a problem with that. Here's an example of what I mean:

Let's just suppose some young anarchists blocked a highway with burning debris, posting a large sign saying they were doing it in support of xxxx First Nation. Then the media demands a response from xxxx.

And let's say even when it is pointed out to them by members of xxxx that it's not welcome, they do it again anyway.

I have a problem with that.

Saga: Hell yeah I'd have a problem with that. The situation I described was problematic, in that there is no easy answer. In the situation you just described it is easy to spot the problem! Solidarity is one thing but I'd have to wonder about anyone who would think doing as you described would help.

Well shit. You know, you have a lot of people milling around, and so on, and then stuff gets broken sometimes. Can't be helped.

Well.

 I have enormous respect for Judy Rebick and her work. I even hear she created a pretty good web site that lets this sort of discussion happen. There's a clever gender spin in how she phrased her comment too:

I'd bet she's rightly pissed at the male bravado and selfishness in the act she is talking about. I think a gender lens on this might be useful, although I don't think I'm qualified to really address it. 

 But.  

 I think she's painted it far too black-bloc and white. She's accepted the mainstream trope that the anarchists dressed in black are automatically "violent" based on how they present themselves. Their outfits are performance (drag, even). They are not the same as a bloc of violent people. Quite the reverse, they are banded together to resist police violence -- which is itself conducted in the name of an authority grounded in everyday violence, so banal and taken-for-granted we don't even see it as violence. Her distaste for the "yahoo" she identifies, I can't really take issue with. Her automatic displacement of that onto an entire group based on self-presentation, well, that's distaste grounded in fashion choices (NOT in a "diversity of tactics" at all) and that makes it elitist, as others have said.

Because ... what's violent about a group of anarchists scaling the fence at the APEC summit in Vancouver in 1997, and getting pepper-sprayed for their pains? What's violent about a cannon firing teddy bears? What's violent about using a megaphone? What's violent about trying to rescue a protester being beaten by cops, when there are no fists directed at the cops?

Nothing.

I hate to always harp on this, but way too often the cops get a pass for their violence. Dominant groups get a pass for the violence in (let's use an example from the Center of the Universe) demolishing Toronto's Tent City. Those who strike back in small ways, usually the most marginalized people, often racialized people out in "Detroit" or "Oakland" or "Jane and Finch" (images to scare the comfortable, more than real places) get tagged as "violent." The biggest cases of violence are so routine they get called normal. And violence gets equated with the wretched of the earth, simply for resisting.

I do take Joey's point about hijacking of protests, though. I'm pretty hardline about the organizers of a protest having "ownership" over it, and a right to tell others to take their tactics elsewhere. Ownership is fairly easy to assign in first nations struggles, harder in things like a protest against the G20. 

-- 

"One law for the lion and the ox is oppression" - Blake

Who was upset about Goodwin's house getting trashed?  That was properly targeted.   Most people saw justice in it.  I doubt the broken windows, trashed Mercedes-- all insured-- bothered Goodwin too much.

But the resounding public "You had it coming, asshole" undoubtedly shook him-- and others-- to the marrow.

I have a real problem with folks who hijack demonstrations/protests with random acts of vandalism or violence.

IMHO it's an elitist kind of action.

It says I'm too damned good to do the hard day to day slogging work to convince very large numbers of people of the importance of an issue and to organize them into taking collective action.

So instead, I'll show up at an event where others have done all the hard organizing work.

I'll show all these folks that they're a bunch of wimps, and show everyone how "uber militant" I am...how much more committed I am to the cause than everyone else is.

If the horses, the billy clubs, pepper spray, tear gas, rubber/plastic bullets come out I've shown everyone the repressive apparatus of the state...woken all of these "wimpy" demonstrators out of their slumber...

All because I'm an "elite militant"...and elite militants don't get their hands dirty talking to "icky" ordinary people.

In the end, such issues are either weighed by referring to the people involved - listening, talking, eventually deciding and trying to implement that respectfully or safely, i,.e. what the demonstration is - or by referring to disembodied principles and/or spectators - authority, onlookers, media, a comfortable peer group, i.e. how it looks.

I am sorry to acknowledge that on this issue, Rebick, a honourable long-term activist, seems to takes the second tack and play it to the hilt, which puts her in the opposition to people whose peer group is less well-connected and whose issues do not benefit from her well-honed strategies and contacts, even if these have yet - and by far - to prove their efficacy.

(double post)

I'm really enjoying this thread, including arguments that I don't support.

I think of the state's violence as a bubble prison. You don't know it's there until you bump up against the sides. Some people can/do live their lives never bumping against the sides, and don't see what the problem is. Do as you're told, be good, don't throw things, sit in the street for a non-violent sit in, be peaceful, and nothing will/should happen to you. It's the surprise that's surprising.

Some people, as mentioned by saga and It's Me D, bump into the sides all the time. Some people's very existences are "illegal" or "problematic" as far as the state's control  mechanisms are concerned. They live in the place where violence against them is invisible to others.

To be clear, I'm not one of those people. I have a rather privileged bubble. I try to work in alliance, and know that there is daily violence or threat of violence, whether an organized protest is going on or not.

One thing these protests do is make visible the "bubble" for those of us who mostly can choose not to see it. Then we wonder how could we have not seen it all this time.

And, yo, Catchfire, I need to make up a term for anyone who talks about Slavoj Žižek in the middle of a tactics discussion. Something akin to "Godwin's rule".

P.S. Can you explain why, having never heard of Žižek a year ago, I've now encountered in the past 7 or 8 months a zillion people who read him and talk about him and name-drop him? Does he have a new reality show or something?   

P.P.S. He seems to be a smarty pants I should read, btw. 

Yes riot cops are shithead fascist pig thugs and always will be.   What else is new?

And I know very well that cops are most likely to beat the crap out of anti-poverty activists, young people and minorities.

But the question at the beginning of the thread is acts of vandalism and/or violence by activists at demonstrations...and how movement destroying it can be.

You're right radiorahim, sorry for my contribution to the drift.

I don't know: Who is to tell in advance what will be most "movement-destroying"? Maybe going home and bad-mouthing a not-peaceful-enough-to-one's-taste demo with killer rhetoric is just that.

As for Slavoj Žižek, Maysie, I have checked out his Wikipedia entry and feel tempted to give him a very wide berth...

Yes. I hardly think he will be providing much support to your already fixed ideological constructs. We wouldn't want your head to explode or anything.

He is big on pyschology though, so you do have some things in common. That said, and despite a sweeping pejorative dismissal, based on a "wiki" article of all things you might actually try dealing with the arguement put forth, which was:

Actually it wasn't a question it was a statement and one that some of us are questioning and challenging.

Fundamentally, I think the right to violence is entirely contextual. So while I agee with Radiorahim that having a few upstarts hijack an action is most certainly obnoxious, especially when this kind of thing is done over the heads of the people who a responsible for the action, I don't think violence, including attacks on property and vandalism should be rejected as outside the bounds of civil disobediance.

I think this question is way too theoretical.

Opportunism should definitely be quashed. For me this is more of a question of the internal organization of the protest. Organizers must be careful to arrange their own security which will remove obnoxious elements and provocateurs from any demonstration, by intimidation or by force if the police are not willing to back up the organizers requests.

I see mythological Gandhi has surfaced in discussion piece by Rebick, and I think it would be wise to point out that the Gandhi movement existed against a backdrop of a great deal of violence directed at ending British rule. In fact the Japanese got a great deal of milage our of supporting and fielding a 50,000 strong anti-colonialist all volunteer puppet army during WWII led by Chandra Bose, who is still hailed as a national hero in India to this day, even though he fought on the side of the Axis during the Second World War. Gandhi himself put forward the position during WWII that the people of India should not join the British army and fight the Japanese.

I am not sure where people sit with the idea of India being a Japanese client state during WWII, but that seems to have been the counter-historical narrative, supported directly by militant Indian nationalists and tacitly supported by the Congress party, (in charge of the colonial parliment by free vote under a British Governor General) that refused to declare war on India's behalf against the Axis when hostilities broke out.

The British Governor General, predictably, deigned to do it for them. The fact is that the British had been trying to disentangle itself from direct rule of Indian affairs for quite some time, and the first elections for an all India parliment were held in the 30's.

The writing was on the wall as far as the British Raj was concerned, and had they not assented to full Indian independence after 1945, it is very likely that things would have gotten pretty bloody pretty fast, and everyone knew it. 

The lesson to be learned from Gandhi, is not that "Gandhi taught us not to use violence", but that non-violence is preferable. It can be very powerful force in the hands of adroit political leadership, but there should be no absolute prohibition against its use in the face of tyrrany.

Just so, organizers should have no qualms about ejecting provocateurs and hotheads from a demonstration, by force if necessary, if the police wont do it for them.

Good post, Cueball.

Does Judy Rebick Babble?

I've drawn her attention to this thread, so she'll most likely read it at some point, but she's out of town at the moment (in Edmonton tonight for her book tour if anyone is interested!) so she probably hasn't had a chance to read yet.  She has an account here but she hardly ever uses it.  Probably because she has a calendar/schedule that would daunt 3 people.  I don't know how she does it, frankly. :)  I just posted it here because I wanted to see what babblers would have to say about it, and I knew I'd hear another perspective here - and I think that's really important and great. If you want to draw her attention to something and make sure she sees it, the best place to do that is a comment on her blog.

I'm not wedded to either position in the absolute, nor am I dogmatic about non-violence.  I lean towards Judy's point of view on it, but I do see where "violent" protest is acceptable.  For instance, that eviction of the Harris Tory politician's constituency office (forget his name) is an action I support, even though I realize it probably scared his office staff.  Well, that's what an eviction is like.  Scary.  I totally support OCAP's action in that matter.  Not sure whether Judy would agree with me or not on that one.  I also think that the action in London, attacking that banker's house after he made off with all that money, is laudable.  Violent?  Yes, I suppose, but it was strategic and got the point across, and furthermore, it got good press, which is a bonus.

So I'm not a total pacifist.  I think there's a time and a place.

So when violence is used at a demo what is its purpose(s)?

 Banjo, the political term is Propaganda of the Deed (propagande par le fait).

"...a concept that promotes physical violence against political enemies as a way of inspiring the masses and catalyzing revolution. It is based on the principles of anarchism and appeared towards the end of the 19th century."

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

Well, I assume, Caissa, that the purposes are the same as non-violent protest: a statement against some form of oppression. Like statica says, it is a 'diversification of tactics'; that is, a different way of manifesting the protest statement. I think it's interesting that it's mainly these anti-globalization, or anti-capitalist demons that most often result in violence, because they are direct responses to the violence enacted and enlisted by capitalism to promote its well-being. Anti-war protests, even anti-occupation protests (in the West--i.e. not by those being occupied) rarely escalate to violence.

That is not to say that the violence isn't occasionally or simultaneously satisfying to the actors in and of itself--as peurile retaliation or thrill-seekin--but contrast this with the fun many peaceful protestors enjoy at demonstrations: witty slogans, drum circles, artistic political expression, etc.

 Along with property destruction, there are also tactics such as occupations, sit ins, etc, where a crowd of people rush through a door and suddenly are taking over someone else's space for political purpose: no business as usual concept.

Let me forward the example of an unfair/illegal eviction of a woman and her children from a apartment for illegal reasons. As a response, a political/social justice group might occupy the landlord office in response to eviction.

Now, one side could call it an just occupation. The other side could consider it an act of violence.

another example is one that Michelle pointed out with OCAP:

her quote: "For instance, that eviction of the Harris Tory politician's constituency office (forget his name) is an action I support, even though I realize it probably scared his office staff.  Well, that's what an eviction is like.  Scary.  I totally support OCAP's action in that matter."

I don't think anyone considers a peaceful sit in "violence".

you and i and other progressives, but i have had a peaceful sit in described to me by the target of that sit in as a, violence and offensive act as people rushed into the lobby in an agressive manner and occupied the place. she called the police as she felt threatened and intimidated.

laudable? What about children or other family in the house? What the hell does attacking his house accomplish? It is definitely violent and I don't think it results in good press.  There are lots of rich people still making millions during this crisis, is attacking all of their homes laudable?  I'm sorry, I don't support attacking someone's home or a place of business.

 Sit-ins, demonstrations, etc. are all peaceful and a completely different situation. Lumping all of this together is playing right into the MSM's hands in terms of what is defined as violence. Attacking a private residence where children may be present is definitely a category that should be characterized as violence by both.

I hope Judy does come into this thread and make some much-needed comments.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear when making this point so I'll clarify. While progressives see sit-ins, demonstrations as peaceful, that is not/never how the state preceives them. This is why the police are called.

They are not peaceful to the state because the state considers it "disturbing the peace" because it disrupts capitalism's business-as-usual concept (how can their be peace without justice?)

And when the police are called, they bring the force of the state's capasity for violence with them -- not just guns, batons and tasers, but the ability to threaten, intimidate, beat and arrest. They (the police; the state) brings down the violence.

(how many times have i been to a peaceful demo where people are literally chanting "this is a peaceful protests" while the cops are rushing in and beating the shit out of the people at the same time)

Essentially, what we consider as peaceful is considered a threat to the state. Sad but very true. This is why police behaviour (the state's behaviour) needs to be challenged in this regard.

Goodwin didn't give a fuck when he gave a giant two-fingered salute to the entire British population with his 16-million-pound pension after taxpayer bailed out his calamitous spell as CEO of the Royal Bank of Scotland. How much responsiblity does he bear to people (and their children) who lost their homes or jobs because of mismanagement like Goodwin's? I agree that Goodwin is largely suffering because of the picture-perfect symbolism his greed effects, but his absolute antipathy for the plight of the British un- and under-employed is shocking.

It's like poking a hornet's nest and then complaining when you get stung.

ETA: By the way, Goodwin's house was empty when it was vandalized. It was his second home here in Edinburgh, poor chap.

I agree it is ridiculous and unjust Catchfire. But there are tons of situations like this. GM.s CEO just made away like a bandit. What does Bombardier's CEO make? They just layed off thousands in Montreal on the same they posted profit. Should his (or her..not sure) house be attacked? Bombardier's receives millions in corporate welfare. Would Michelle call attacking his house laudable?

ETA: It is Pierre Beaudoin and here is what he said yesterday~

To what extent do we care if our tactics get "good press" in the National Pest or other bastions of the establishment? I would think that this would indicate a problem with them.

Beside, whenever it suits the system for you to get bad press, rest assured that you will get it in spades.

Hear hear.  The left rarely supports vigilantism, even for violent criminals.  But vigilantism is kewl when it's an economic criminal? 

One could say the same of any offender in a community.  I'm really missing the part where an economic crime is somehow deserving of vigilantism.  Once you say that bad people deserve whatever an angry victim decides to throw at them, how are you going to put that genie back in the bottle? 

Apparently in France, managers are being held hostage by angry workers.  Sorry, but tell me how that's not kidnapping, and why those workers should be exempt from the usual laws that say that none of us has the right to hold another hostage?  

Again, just vigilantism, and there's nothing noble or laudable about vigilantism.

You can choose to ignore all the philospohical underpinnings throughout this thread and reduce it to vigilantism if you like, Snert, but that's just intellectual dishonesty. It's also reactionary, elementary contrarian stuff. But knock yourself out.

Feel free to tell me how these "philosophical underpinnings" have somehow justified vigilantism.

And sorry if you feel I'm taking your toy away. 

Snert makes a good point though.  Should a raped woman be justified in attaching the home of the rapist (or the judge that let him off too easily...or the police that did not believe or or treat her with a respectful investigation)?  I understand and have studied the philosophical underpinnings of anarchism and I still believe in the rule of law and democracy. You can argue that it is severely flawed in its current formation in Canada, but also argue that extremely positive changes have happened while respecting the rule of law and working democratically.

Pressuring politicians to ensure companies receiving corporate welfare cannot lay people off and working to bring public attention and outrae to this issue seems the way to go. Trashing the CEO's house is a crime and should remain a crime.

martin: I wasn't arguing that activists should strive for "good press" from a biased MSM (or that this should be valued) I was arguing Michelle's contention that those trashing the Brit bankeer's house did in fact receive "good press" (however you define it).

I can't speak to general rules because I have only had experience with a few protest areas, never directly the black block, but can speak about my experience.

I mentioned about a protest at Queens Park up the tread.  At that particular protest, as I mentioned there was no violence per say but the protestor did act in a way that compelled the police to act.

In that situation I, personally, see what the protestor did as sympolic.  It was a way of bringing out for all to see exactly what we do.  He tried to equalize the Haudensaunee, his nation, and Canada, our nation by raising both flags together.  Canada would not exist except for the ability for them to accept us and treat us as equals and it was only in this  act of treating us as equals that allowed us to get to the point where we made their governments illegal and made their people not people.

So what did we do?  The agents of the government, who have been assured by the government that they are acting rightly and justly through years of teaching what they deem to be appropriate history, did not allow him to carry out this symbolic act but instead came in and forcibly arrested him just as they had all those before him.  Anyone witnessing that event or even hearing about the event can not deny what the governments attitude toward the Haudensaunee in particular and FN people in general are.

I see the protests in Brantford, Cayuga and Haggersville the same only less symbolic and more reality.

On a day to day basis the Haudensaunee land is being taken.  The government keeps saying we will talk later and in the words of Smitheman "they won't get it back".  They go to the construction sites and stop construction.  Some consider this economic assult and indeed the protests have escalated as well to include violence.  Why is that?  One reason is because the police initially stopped the workers from working and kept the construction crew and builders off site because of the Ipperwash Inquiry, however recently this has not been happening.  We have decided that our want to keep our colonialist version of captalism going is more important than their right to their treaty land or say over their treaty land.  Our wants are more important their their rights.  When violence happens it is because they are standing up for their rights because no one else will.  They are not willing to back down.  If they have to meet a violent confrontation they will but of the people that I have talked with who were involved in the more violent confrontations they didn't initiate anything.  They stood their ground and if it staying non violent meant that they would have to back down they refused to do that, they were willing to meet whatever came their way to stand up for themselves, again because no one else will.

One memory I have is from the highway bypass blockade last April.  At one point the police said they were going to come in and clear everyone out.  I was standing on the bridge above the blockade with about 200 people.  Below me there were about 20 Warriors on the road and double that on the hill.  They were waiting.  Their actions at this point had been non violent.  But they were willing to meet what came to them.

Michelle says it got good press, an empirical assessment (which I can't express any opinion about, personally). You say you "don't think it results in good press", an idealist normative argument. Your implicit point seems to be that tactics should get good press in the MSM. Well, this apparently did.

Gandhi was a winner.

He was killed by a rock thrower without an understanding of humanity.

I just think people need to get over the hang-up of automatically thinking "violence = evil; non-violence = good".

To call something violent is not necessarily to condemn it. Violence is a fact of nature and of life; its moral dimension depends very much on the circumstances in which it occurs.

I think that, short of civil war, violence against an industrial nation-state is simply not going to affect meaningful change.  The state will virtually always have superior firepower.  Protestors will never win that battle.  Every violent act by protestors will draw an even more violent act from the state.  So to my mind there are two possibilities: either we deliberately involve ourselves in constantly escalating violence, or we acknowledge that, justified or not, it's simply not a battle we can win.

As one poster asked, what are the specific aims that a violent protest aims to achieve?  Let's say that a protestor breaks the windows of a bank.  The end goal of this is what?  The bank is not harmed in any way.  The money to repare that property damage isn't going to come from the CEO's bank account.  If anything, it's going to come in the form of increased service charges to that bank's users.  The bank may even justify the increased service charges as being necessary because of the damage that has been done to them.  That, in turn, sets the bank's customers against the protestors.  But not just the protestors, but their goals as well.   That is a serious problem.

Now, the goal of a peaceful protest, at least in my mind, is not to actually change the behaviour of the state directly.  Rather, it is to raise awareness about the issue and get a broader cross-section of the public to learn about the cause and come on side with it.  This increased mass will, in turn, put increased pressure on politicians to adopt progressive policies.  That's the theory, anyway.  It is quite difficult to tell exactly how well such a thing works.  But it is not at all difficult to say that property destruction is extremely unlikely to get the average citizen on-side; whether activists like it or not, those average citizens are going to have to be part of any successful movement.

Except that there comes a time in history (and we are very far from that time as yet) when "average citizens" are so desperate and angry at the state that they will embrace social movements who demonstrate they are not afraid to take violent measures if necessary in defence of their rights as against the violence of the state.

Violence and non-violence are tactics, not eternal moral principles. 

To use a famous example:

 Southern Bread Riots

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

"The protesters believed a negligent government and greedy merchants were to blame. To show their displeasure, many protesters turned to violence."  

(the price of bread is rising again and we have seen riots in parts of the Middle East)

I honestly get the feeling that some radicals, rather than hoping this day never has to come, instead hope it will come quicker, and if that means that people have to become more miserable in order to hurry this along, that's a small price to pay. 

That's an interesting link to post, because it kind of looks like the protesters were blaming the wrong people.

... so let's blame it on the bakery and then go burn down the bakery! 

Hilariously relevant as we discuss smashing a window at the Gap. 

Commie plot to reduce the bread supply to inspire revolution? You don't say. Interesting.

You mean we didn't get this resolved already?  ;)  Long thread - continue in a new one if you'd like!