Breaking windows is not a revolutionary act

The first time I ran into people who believed that breaking windows was a revolutionary act was in 1972. We had just had 21 people arrested for occupying the campus at University of Toronto to set up a tent city for transient youth. We called it Wachea, a place where everyone was welcome, or so we thought. A radical new left group called Red Morning tried to convince the assembled masses that going back to the University and "trashing it," in the parlance of the day, was the best way to protest the arrests. It was the moment I stepped into leadership, debating them for hours, saying that more violence was counter productive and would give more strength to the arguments against us.

Instead we should protest on the grounds of Queen's Park and demand that the government give us land for our transient community. In those days we didn't have the notion of "diversity of tactics." We believed in the group who was organizing the demonstration deciding democratically what to do. Red Morning withdrew their proposal since they couldn't convince us.

I was in the my early twenties then, named in an injunction against the occupation, and risking prison, but still unwilling to see how deliberate vandalism furthers a cause. It's almost forty years later, and protesting the Olympics is a much more important issue than setting up a tent city for transient youth, but breaking windows still risks derailing the important Indigenous rights, anti-poverty and anti-corporate messages of the thousands of protesters on the streets of Vancouver.

As anyone who follows my work knows, I think the youthful anti-globalization movement that became visible in Seattle in 1999 has been responsible for some wonderful innovations in organizing and protesting. I am a big supporter of non-violent direct action, including, when needed, blockading streets and bridges to show the importance of an issue. I support horizontal networked organizing so that particular groups can take responsibility for the issues and actions that mean the most to them.

But if diversity of tactics means that people who aim to commit vandalism and sometimes violence can come into the middle of a demonstration with black face masks and break up whatever takes their fancy when the vast majority of people involved don't want them to, then I draw a line. It's true that violent action gets more publicity, but it's the wrong publicity that is about the violence itself, not about the issue.

Protesting these Olympics is tricky ground. VANOC has gotten the participation of four host First Nations, run the torch through communities that have never had that kind of attention before, embedded media sponsors so that it is practically impossible for them to write anything critical about the games, and promoted a level of patriotism rarely seen in these parts. Nevertheless, groups in the Vancouver have done an outstanding job of crafting their protest in a way that has persuaded the majority in BC that the Games are not good for the province [2].

International coverage of the protests has been excellent Here is a slide show [3] from Huffington Post. But in Canada, the coverage has been underplayed, so the only thing a lot of Canadians have seen of the protest is the window breaking.

When a spontaneous anger against the Black Bloc emerged on social media, people berated us for "dividing the movement." But it is the Black Bloc tactics that are creating these divisions. Lots of new activists tell me they believe anyone who commits these violent acts are police agents. That would be easy, but it's not true.

There are agent provocateurs, particularly trying to infiltrate more militant actions and move them to violence as we saw a couple of years ago in Montebello [4]. False accusations have also been part of police over-reaction to demonstrations that get violent like the 600 arrests in Seattle in 1999 and the arrest of Jaggi Singh in Quebec City in 2001. But there are people, and I have debated with them, who really believe that these tactics, by provoking a police over-reaction, reveal that the state is in essence an armed body of men, thus radicalizing people on the march.

The "diversity of tactics" approach does not allow us to debate these issues. It is not whether to defend the people arrested in Vancouver who are. no doubt, in the majority peaceful protesters. It is about whether a small group of people should be able to put thousands of people in jeopardy of being tear gassed, beaten and arrested without their consent. Red zones don't work because if the police do over-react, they will find protesters in whatever zone they might be. As the G8 and G20 plans are developing in Toronto, it is time to debate tactics before the event and if, as I suspect, the majority feels more or less like I do, to tell those enamoured of Black Bloc tactics to do it somewhere else, at a time where they don't put other people and the issues we are fighting for in jeopardy.

Comments

Submitted by B9sus4 on February 16, 2010 - 5:22pm.

Thugs. I've seen the videos. They've captured pictures of these "anarchists" coming out of police station and off military posts wearing their black fightin' gear.. just like the cops wear. Black. Disguised. It's also a fact that most of these militant cults are heavily seeded with cops and spies.. Time and time again they find the most vocal ones, the ones screeching for violence, turn out to be working for the state.

You are a national treasure, Ms Rebick. Good for you trying to prevent dummies from being sucked in by these trouble makers. Every one we lose to the extremists is another enemy we have to face, but an enemy that walks with us, though carrying the virus of insanity that hopes to destroy us.

Submitted by Dru on February 16, 2010 - 6:01pm.

"Breaking windows is not a revolutionary act."

Starting with the title, the debate is off on the wrong footing. It's that of a religious war, not a respectful debate about tactics. Breaking windows isn't a revolutionary act, except when it is.

We're obviously not talking about a moral issue here. Blocking railroad tracks or highways costs corporations far more money than replacing windows does. The destruction and death caused by the Hudson's Bay Co is the moral equivalent of an infinite number of broken windows.

It's a tactical issue. Black bloc is a tactic. As with any tactic, sometimes it's appropriate and sometimes it's not. I don't remember too many people complaining when the fence was pulled down in Quebec City, for example. In other cases, a legitimate case and has been made that people who use the black bloc tactic have been disrespectful or undermined protests.

Our ability to have that debate in any given situation isn't helped in any way by people pronouncing from on high that a tactic is never acceptable or legitimate. This is especially the case when people making this case do so against the backdrop of widespread backlash against people who use a particular tactic.

The organizers in Vancouver made a decision to support diversity of tactics. How is dissing them publicly from Toronto while they are under more pressure and public scrutiny than they have probably ever faced anything other than the divisive action that Rebick wants to ascribe only to the black bloc?

Taking advantage of widespread ignorance and disinformation to berate and marginalize people with similar political views and differing tactical views leaves a bad smell behind in a movement that's supposedly based on respect and solidarity.

There's a much-needed debate to be had about tactics, but the mode of a religious war cynically waged is exactly the wrong way to kick it off.

Submitted by derrick on February 16, 2010 - 9:10pm.

Don't weigh in from Toronto, says Dru from ... ? I'm Vancouver-based and feel very comfortable with this necessary debate including diverse voices with diverse experiences to share from all over the place. Often groups on the Left have enforced counter-productive edicts against freedom to voice differences -- that's a road to nowhere. We can argue where we don't agree while working together on everything we do agree on. It's great and appropriate to have these independent and interactive media outlets providing a venue for this discussion.

Submitted by Dru on February 16, 2010 - 10:07pm.

Hi Derrick,

If you re-read my post, you'll see I said nothing remotely along the lines of "don't weigh in from Toronto". I'm in Montreal, though I don't think it makes a lot of difference. I merely pointed out that organizers in Vancouver made tactical decisions, and dissing them in a heavy handed and undifferentiated manner from afar is in fact divisive.

I also agreed that the discussion needs to happen. What I objected to was... why should i repeat it? It's all there in my post.

I actually thought that your example of José Bové, which you brought up in a different venue, points the way to a productive debate. If we look at the positive instances where property destruction was used, it can teach us a lot about when the tactic is and is not useful. Telling everyone who disagrees that they're just always wrong is the road straight to a polarized and unproductive debate, and a permanently divided movement that's distracted from what's important.

dru

Submitted by fluidity on February 16, 2010 - 11:24pm.

i have to say that i agree with Dru

i will assume (i'm not in a position to say for sure) that there was some dialogue and debate before it was decided that the organizing collective in Vancouver decided on the 'diversity of tactics' basis of unity ... so to say that adopting such unity doesn't allow us to debate tactics is perhaps a bit off (and obviously is outside of the 'unity' that the vancouver organizers have organized under)

it's interesting, i saw a link under 'similar entries' titled 'urgent lessons for ottawa protest' about the nov 2001 protests in ottawa, and it was a very similarly-themed opinion piece from Judy talking about how when protestors are 'violent' (ahem, maybe we need a dialogue about what exactly is 'violent') then the police get violent with everyone. perhaps we should have a bit more of an issue with the police and a bit less with a couple broken windows?
in that piece, she ends it by stating The events of September 11 raise the urgent necessity for dialogue, discussion and compromise in the anti-globalization movement. Nothing is more important."

but what comprise? this piece and the ottawa one both seem to be clear the only 'compromise' that is okay with Judy is one that doesn't allow 'diversity of tactics' ... and this is done under the premise that 'majority rules' aka we are assuming that most people do not want any property damage done, and therefore we have to not allow anyone who wants to do so to participate as they see fit

it's true that many people will not or can not participate in protests where the police may come down hard, and this is a problem ... but again some of this has to go on the police. and perhaps there are other ways to have people participate, to deal with this problem?

Submitted by Dr. Scud on February 17, 2010 - 12:45am.

The problem with 'diversity of tactics' is that in the end they just don't work.

First and foremost is that violence (and it is violence) hijacks whatever message you hope to get out. Violence will always overshadow the real reason for taking to the streets. Even with the Quebec City example you would be hard pressed today to find anyone you actually remember what issues the protesters actually had... but we all remember a fence coming down.

The same is true with Vancouver protests this week. The message of why people were protesting was lost among the violence.

You can rant all you want that the Mainstream media doesn't do a good job at covering the protest, but that's pretty naive. Conflict drives news. Especially when people break the law and get arrested. There are easy facts such as how many people were arrested, the cost of the property damage, etc..

This leads to the second flaw, which that violence de-legitimizes the movement as a whole. There are few people that want to align themselves with violent people. If you are trying build support or opposition to something you pretty much blow it away when ever you start breaking things. If the only thing people see about x-issue is of people in black facemasks smashing windows and swearing at the media then your not going to rake in the support.

And my third point is that this or any type of violence allows the police to come in with batons a waving and heads a cracking. I am not saying that it should, but that's what happens. And when it does it threatens everyone at the event. Why give them excuse to shut you down?

Non-violent direct action always works better. Why? Because the media is forced to report what the event is actually about. It usually shows peaceful people that the rest of the public can identify with. And the polices can't easily stop it and if they try the public is more ready to take your side over that of the police.

At its core violence of any ilk is the petty act. It shows how weak you really are that you have to resort to breaking things to get noticed. Dressing it up in politics doesn't change that.

Submitted by Judes on February 17, 2010 - 9:49am.

I used a provocative headline on purpose to provoke debate and I think it has provoked a very productive debate here and on my Facebook page, and blog. The problem is if we don't raise the issue while it is happening, the debate dies. I very explictly praised the Vancouver protest organizers but I don't agree with the interpretation of diversity of tactics and as I said, it will also be an issue for the G8 and G20 demonstrations. Some people have argued that debating this publicly puts people in jeopardy. If I were an organizer in the Vancouver, I would be criticizing the police and defending the people arrested. It is precisely because I am not at the centre of this that I can raise my concerns without having a negative impact on anyone. In other places people have argued that we can't have the debate because it is too dangerous. I don't accept that either. People can defend these tactics without admitting to carrying them out. What's more, I have been defending people all my life against police violence and injustice including in Quebec City but we don't need a debate on the Left about police violence, we do need it about "diversity of tactics."

I was there when the fence went down in Quebec City and it was not only the Black Bloc that did it. Everyone participated and pulling down a fence that had become a symbol of the lack of democracy of these global summits was a great action that everyone supported and by the way had been discussed in advance. The only surprise was how easy it came down. What I was critical of in Quebec was the Black Bloc running up to the police lines and throwing stones at the police. In my view and I was closely observing, it provoked the police. In their view, it held the police back so others could regroup. We debated it once at a meeting in Toronto but the diversity of tactics position was never debated again as far as I know.

That being said, I agree with the criticism that I have over generalized and of course property damage is sometimes a useful tactic. It is not a moral issue nor is diversity of tactics a moral issue but whenever it gets raised, a hush falls over the room. When I raised it in a Toronto meeting for the G8, G20, one of the organizers said well they (Black Bloc) will be coming and there is nothing we can do to stop them. That's not true at all. As anyone who has marshalled knows, if a group agrees that a demonstration will be non-violent, including no property damage, there are lots of techniques to stop protesters who become violent. We can also say in advance that we don't want and won't accept violence in our ranks.

People are afraid to raise their objections. That's why when I saw the number of angry posts on Facebook, I decided to raise the arguments in a way that lots of people could participate. We need this debate and I am glad we are actually having it.

Submitted by McGee on February 17, 2010 - 10:43am.

I get the feeling that many in the black block are interested in violence and smashing stuff up for its own sake and that anti-capitalist politics gives them an avenue to do this. Progressive politics is not their motivation.

Actually, if we were in Nazi Germany these same young people would probably be in the SS.

The left should stop justifying and feeding these people's destructive instincts and tell them they aren't welcome at protests.

Submitted by AR on February 17, 2010 - 12:45pm.

It should be pointed out that breaking windows does not constitute violence. Violence involves harm to life. If, in the process of breaking windows and other acts of property destruction, people are threatening and attacking others, that is violence. What the Luddites did in destroying machinges was not violent; people in Argentina smashing banks in response to the financial collapse was not violent; the destruction of forestry equipment by foresters who lost their jobs in New Brunswick many years ago, also a non-violent act. Fishermen throwing rocks at trucks with scab labourers in Nova Scotia in the 1970s is borderline on violence -- depending on injuries and intent to injure -- but understandable nevertheless.

It is crucially important to make this distinction between property destruction itself and violence. The Criminal Justice system gives people very harsh punishments for property destruction largely because of the construction by capitalists of the corporation as a person. The punishments for acts of property destruction that significantly upset the corporate owners will often lead to sentences that exceed what someone will get for rape and second degree murder. Look at the slew of radical environmental and anti-war political prisoners in the U.S. to get a snapshot. The theoretical backdrop of the argument for property destruction as violence is that the corporation is a person, meaning that if you destroy a piece of their body, you are committing an act of violence. We do not need to reify this false construction, but by pronouncing breaking windows as "violence", that is what Judy has inadvertantly done. Such pronouncements do not help the cases of the political prisoners, both past present and future, since it offers the Government lawyers societal backing in their positions of property destruction as violence.

I am not making an argument about the inherent good or bad in property destruction. Each situation has to be weighed and there will no doubt be differing opinions on the cases. It should also be pointed out that big developers shut down and destroy property all the time in the process of gentrification. They also destroy ecosystems. One can make a very strong case that these acts are violent because they harm people and life in vulnerable situations, rather than the cases of windows breaking, which end up really only being symbolic unless done en masse, since corporations have plenty of insurance to absorb such damage.

Also, some acts of violence are hard to oppose, such as a woman killing someone trying to rape her.

We have to listen to the story in each case and really ask what we mean by social justice, and not just pronounce something as good or bad based on a violence - non-violence dichotomy.

Solidarity requires understanding

Submitted by Dru on February 17, 2010 - 3:58pm.

"Actually, if we were in Nazi Germany these same young people would probably be in the SS."

Amazing. That kind of rhetoric (on both sides) is precisely why, as Judy says, a "hush falls over the room" when these questions are brought up. Smarten up.

Submitted by M. Spector on February 17, 2010 - 10:02pm.

We have to ask ourselves whether violent actions by protesters in a given situation provoke police "over-reaction" or whether the police are actually the source of the violence in that situation (and BTW torturing the English language to redefine violence as not including property damage does nothing to resolve the issue). As "fluidity" points out above, Judy Rebick has stumbled over this question before, and here's another example; whereas George Monbiot got it right [16] on that occasion.

We also have to ask why the violence of a minority of demonstrators is assumed automatically to be harmful to their cause, while the proportionally much greater violence of the police is not considered to be harmful to the cause of the ruling class. Do the police berate each other for cracking protesters' heads because it makes the whole police force look bad? No.

Should we allow the mass media to be the arbiters of what does or doesn't "hurt the cause"? Those media will always be either hostile or indifferent to public demonstrations. If they don't have footage of somebody knocking over a newspaper box, they will focus on giving voice to counter-demonstrators, or hostile passers-by, and never engage in any way with the political issues giving rise to the protest. They will rely on police sources for crowd (under)estimates and always side with the police ("Police were forced to use tear gas to control the mob...").

Besides the police violence, or threat of violence, we must also acknowledge the violence that is visited daily on oppressed people. In the words of a black bloc communiqué [17]:

Quote:

The media are now busy denouncing the political violence of property destruction, such as the smashing of a Hudson's Bay Company window, as though it were the only act of violence happening in this city. They forget that economic violence goes on daily in Vancouver. People are suffering and dying from preventable causes because welfare doesn't give enough to afford rent, food or medicine, and because authorities routinely ignore the medical emergencies of poor or houseless individuals. This economic violence has gotten worse as we lose housing and social services because of the Olympic Games.

It's no surprise that this systemic violence gives rise to anger, frustration, and property damage in the midst of a mass protest, where the powerless suddenly begin to feel the power of being part of something greater than themselves. I have no interest in lecturing the oppressed people of this world on the niceties of peaceful protest, or the importance of currying favour with the treacherous mass media.

Submitted by fluidity on February 18, 2010 - 1:21am.

so a question, to Judy or anyone else: how do you work towards figuring out a different way to deal with issue, that is not an imposition of will of one group onto another

i'm curious - the non-property-destruction crowd are being portrayed as imposed upon by window-breakers, and if property destruction was outlawed that would be an imposition onto those 'vandals' by the 'don't break the law' crowd

personally i don't feel a majority rules system is the way to go - just cause a view/perspective/tactical choice in in the minority, doesn't mean it should be completely outlawed ... i can think of a lot of cases where a simple majority decision doesn't do justice to the different voices and opinions of all involved

consensus? something else? i think something lost when 'diversity of tactics' is discussed is that it is not viewed as diversity, but more along the lines of 'property damage'/'violence' vs non-that ... when really it's about embracing all different types of actions ... perhaps we can come up with a diversity of possibilities of how we can transcend this debate?

Submitted by Polunatic2 on February 18, 2010 - 5:22pm.

Where does the line get drawn and who gets to draw it? It seems to me that a logical line in the sand is between "non-violent" and "violent". For some, there's not much distinction between a window and a cop - both seen as symbols or coercion and injustice. So let's not fool ourselves into thinking that this is just a discussion about breaking windows and whether or not that is a form of "violence".

One of the principles that drove the US civil rights movement was a strict adherence to non-violent resistance, even in the face of unprovoked violent attacks by the police, KKK and the state. It did not happen spontaneously or without planning and preparation. It allowed the movement to continue growing until it achieved its major goal of dismantling the legal pillars of segregation and white supremacy.

Submitted by fluidity on February 18, 2010 - 9:09pm.

and while we're at it let's question the effectiveness of these 'draw inside the lines' protests

there's going to be a major event? let's hold a protest ... we'll all walk around, holding signs, various people will give some speeches, and i'm sure that will lead to change right?

polu - some/many people do make distinctions between harming a person versus doing something to an inanimate object, let's not fool ourselves that there's not or that people don't see that distinction

effectiveness is an important measuring stick; if we agree that we were are trying to change is in fact a system of violence imposed upon people and other living beings, then perhaps whatever is going to actually stop or lessen that violence is the best thing to do?

Submitted by Mick on February 19, 2010 - 11:07am.

It's not a direct response to the above article, but I would encourage readers to read my recent blog post on linchpin.ca

Quote:

We need a mass movement not a black bloc
By Mick Sweetman

As I sat in an activist meeting at a union's downtown Toronto office on Saturday afternoon, discussing such exciting things as what type of brochure we should produce for the upcoming International Women's Day, a text message flashed onto my cell phone from the Vancouver Media Co-op. [22]

"BREAKING VMC VIDEO: Anarchists Smash Windows @ the Bay"

I sighed, shook my head, and blurted out a single word in frustration, "Idiots."

Why was I so frustrated by this almost predictable news from across the country? It's because I've seen it before and knew exactly what the backlash against not only the anti-Olympic protests but also against anarchism itself would be.

Read the rest of the article... [23]

Submitted by Aaron Vidaver on February 19, 2010 - 3:14am.

The Olympic Tent Village, one of the components of the ORN convergence, is still going on. It would be really great if the energy going into these debates could be redirected into solidarity actions at least while the Olympics is still on.

http://olympictentvillage.wordpress.com/

Submitted by AlexD on February 21, 2010 - 1:07pm.

For a critique of the black bloc tactic as used on Feb. 13 from an anarchist-socialist perspective, see:

"We need a mass movement not a black bloc"

http://www.linchpin.ca/English/We-need-mass-movement-not-black-bloc

Submitted by Judes on February 21, 2010 - 6:48pm.

They are having these debates in Vancouver too and rabble TV is covering it. I suggest you go over there and watch the videos. It's an excellent discussion. Debating tactics does not take away from solidarity. On the contrary, openly discussing differences allows for more solidarity.

Submitted by dan kellar on February 22, 2010 - 3:43am.

good call Aaron,

as to this whole thing that Rebick is throwing out here... ummm, the 13th was opened as a space to rage and was specifically not family friendly in the call outs. no protester was put in harms way who did not know exactly what was going on that day. the black bloc was at the march on the 12th and unmasked on the 14th for the memorial march, they were there on the 15th. they were specifically asked by the elders on the 12th to come to the front of the march and confront the police state for protection. the black bloc de-escalated the situation when a 'by-standard' ran into the march on the 13th throwing fists.

the black bloc did not speak out about the possible ineffectiveness of less radical marches, and did not rip on the organizers of the "peaceful" marches for the disillusionment that they may cause. and they won't because they are a part of a movement that respects each other and respects diversity of tactics.

all movements are open to infiltration, it is the solidarity and security culture found in black blocs that identifies and removes police. numerous undercovers and provocateurs were at the march on the 12th, not all in the black bloc, but they were outed by the black bloc.

Harsha and Derrick discuss diversity of tactics:
http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/audio/2850

before opening your notebook again and writing, please find out how it happened on the ground, at the protests, at the public spokescouncils. why did you mme. Rebick decide that it was your place to immediately breach the statement of unity that the organizers of the ORN articulated? you may not have signed onto it but you disrespected the movement while the convergence and the resistance to the 2010 corporate circus was ongoing... and it still is at tent city!!

Submitted by Mick on February 22, 2010 - 11:23am.

First off, I want to thank rabble for organizing and broadcasting the debate between Walia and O'Keefe. I had agreements and disagreements with both of their positions on the topic, as well as the general framework of the debate, but it was good to see the topic being openly debated.

One thing I do disagree with is the notion that the solidarity and unity statement should act as a gag-order on what independent journalists and activists are allowed to comment on. The difference between "denouncing" and "criticizing" is one of perception and I feel that Rebick's post falls within the boundaries of fair comment. I also think there is a major difference between Rebick's posting on her rabble.ca blog and penning an opinion article in the Globe and Mail or collaborating with police. Independent journalists and activists need to be able to write opinion articles for the independent and alternative media. You are free to disagree with Rebick's post (or mine for that matter) and criticize it but I do not agree with the concept that activist-journalists are acting unethically when they write critical opinion pieces.

On a related matter, seeing how I linked my original blog post here, I think it's only fair to post the follow up to that post Mass movements and militancy where I apologize for personalizing the debate in an insulting way though I stand by my main points.

Submitted by dan kellar on February 22, 2010 - 5:21pm.

Mick, there is a question of timing. allies need not denounce while actions are ongoing. there is absolutely room to discuss tactics, but out of respect for allies in the social justice movement, quick condemnation is not welcome - the olympics are still actively being resisted, there is lots of time to discuss tactics when the more immediate task of revealing to the world how shitty canada is, finishes up.

Submitted by Mick on February 23, 2010 - 1:32am.

So independent journalists should not write critical opinion articles while those events are still newsworthy and worth commenting on?

Sorry, Kellar, but you should know that's not how journalism works. You have to be timely with your news and opinion articles if they're to have any relevance to your readers.

I think that the scale that this debate has taken this week shows that Rebick was right to raise the issue when she did. People want to talk about this, they were already talking about it, pretending that those discussions aren't happening and not putting our views forward in "solidarity" is a mistake as such a policy would serve to silence independent journalists.

Again, say whatever you want about the content of Rebick's post, that is your right as long as it's not libellous. But don't tell independent journalists what the content of their opinion articles should be or when they're allowed to write on current events. That's up to our Editors.

Submitted by kim elliott on February 23, 2010 - 3:14pm.

You can watch the Diversity of Tactics debate on rabbletv here: http://www.livestream.com/rabbletv or http://rabble.ca/rabbletv [32]

A high quality version of the video will be coming from Working TV soon.

Submitted by dan kellar on February 23, 2010 - 6:34pm.

I think the idea of newsworthyness is something worth questioning. in whose world does newsworthyness get established, is it the mainstream where things are only newsworthy for as long as they will bring in ratings?

if we are challenging the narrative of the dominant media, why do we have to follow their example and write on things only when they first happen. why do we need to be in the faces of our allies during their actions. is it not our responsibility to make sure the space remains open for them to continue to resist, if we have our own allies calling the actions threatening or ineffective, as they are happening, is it no wonder the corporate media does not pick up on these stories in a truthful manner?

just as the ctv reporters who followed people and filmed them when they de-blocked on the 13th, allies posing as independent journalists can have a negative effect on actions, and put the people who undertook them at risk. the police state looks at both mainstream and indy media, we are not in a bubble of allies.

again, i have nothing wrong of critical analysis, indeed it is required, i have an issue with following the structure of the corporate media by wanting to get the first crack of something newsworthy. Rebick's piece is an opinion that would be just as useful after the games are over, and active resistance has cooled.

good work to rabble for getting that video up of the discussion the other day!!

Submitted by smack on February 24, 2010 - 12:17am.

I appreciate a lot of the comments made so far, but have a couple of things to add:

1. I think it's important to get the facts straight before making public comment, or even inside movement comment. As Dan pointed out, the 13th action was not one where people committed to violence came into a demo and put others at jeopardy, it was openly organized as a black bloc action. The bloc was present at the actions on the friday and took part respectfully. As with the other protestors, they acknowledged and followed the lead of Indigenous organizers and only moved forward when directed to do so. I have been part of many blocs over time (though mostly I do legal support now as I was doing during the heart attack demo) and this is usually the case. Sometimes they do things I disagree with, but more often are supportive of community organized demos and other actions, which is something i hope to help repeat during G8/G20 demos.

2. I think it may be a Canada/US thing, but we mix up politics. tactics and morality all the time. We tend to (and i am sorry Judy, i respect you immensely but i feel like your post does this) be essentialist and moralistic about our discussions on tactics. We tend to dismiss black blocs as "thugs" and pacifists as not being radical or otherwise. This does not help the debate. I think we need some humility. It may be possible that none of us has figured out how to bring about revolution yet. It may be that we need to try different approaches. It may even be that a bunch of different things working together is what works (and i think revolutionary history would not entirely disagree with me).

So, for my dear comrades. I think honest revolutionary debate and discussion are good. But i think we have to respect the consequences. And we need to be realistic that our divisions are usable by the state. I think this doesn't mean shutting down the debate (in fact i think this plays into the state's work) or our movement media. I think (and may be wrong) that it does mean thinking about the consequences of our writing, our comments on other people in our movement, even if we disagree with them, it does mean supporting those people even if they piss us off. It means maybe thinking about the timing, about how we word what we say.

I hope it doesn't mean we stop talking. But when we use language like declaring what is a revolutionary act or what does or doesn't work we don't continue debate, we stifle it.

Submitted by Jebus on March 1, 2010 - 3:12pm.