G8/G20 Communique: After the bombing

Why does everyone have such a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss violent political actions as inappropriate?  And why does destruction of private property constitute a violent action?

Why is it that every time the criminal negligence of CEO's results in multiple fatalities, the corporations they control are given a financial slap on the wrist instead of being held accountable as the murderers they are.

Does anyone ACTUALLY believe that we will be able to get rid of capitalism, usher in an era of social justice, or save the environment by working within the framework of the established order of things?

I truly hope that this firebombing will ignite the tinderbox of anger and dissent that I know we all have been building up.  There is nothing wrong with revolution.  There is nothing wrong with fighting back against police brutality.  There is nothing wrong with destroying corrupt financial institutions.

I don't think that firebombing is a tactic that I would employ. For me, personally, it doesn't feel right.

For ME.

The Ottawa firebombers (assuming they wern't cops) felt that this was the right course of action for them. How can anyone tell me that I must denounce their actions. They harmed no one. They spoke for themselves. They took action.

I won't throw a bomb, but anyone who is willing to stand up for human rights and human justice is someone I will gladly have standing with me.

For a journalist whose rhetoric fits with Rabble's liberal agenda I'm sure it is easy to sit back and claim moral superiority over those who chose different tactics. But these warriors haven't denounced you. There may very well be those out there who feel that your writing is ineffectual and arbitrary, but they haven't denounced you.

Something to think about.

It may be that there is nothing wrong with fighting back by any means necessary against oppression- but this stinks so highly i can smell it from here. Really stinks very badly. I'm not going to reason it out here, but what i smell most is pork. It doesn't have the sweet odour anti-oppressive cologne- not at all- it smells of roast pork. Underdone. Not very well cooked. Inedible, not fit for human consumption. Not kosher, not halel.

I agree with the reactions of the first two commentators above.

Why are supposed left activists so quick to "step up firm and bold" to denounce anonymous others for having the temerity to actually fight back against the system that oppresses them and does daily violence against them?

Ms. Krauss is awfully quick to join in the mainstream media and police characterization of this event as "terrorism" and "evil". I can get this kind of knee-jerk reaction from reading the National Post. I would have hoped for a more nuanced - and less self-righteous - approach from Rabble.

Note the reaction of the Indigenous Environmental Network, which Ms. Krauss quotes. It does not condemn; it does not call for the perpetrators of the firebombing to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. It simply reiterates its support for "strategic non-violent direct action", and, in the final portion (curiously omitted by Ms. Krauss) it says, "We call on all people who recognize the need to stop RBC's dirty investments to honor the leadership of frontline Indigenous communities."

We have much to learn from these frontline groups.

Kraus appears to have no idea what respect for a diversity of tactics means, for while she has it in her bio statement, she then proceeds to denounce others who use different tactics than she thinks appropriate.  what a hypocrite.  As for the IEN they are nothing more than middle-class Native activists, sponsored and highly influenced through the NGO industry, with Clayton Thom-Ass Mueller and other staff members flying around the world and living the middle-class lifestyle.  As an indigenous person i am greatly ashamed by their statements denouncing the actions of real warriors willing to fight back and engage in militant resistance.

Native peopels have a long history of resistance, including the armed resistance of warriors at Oka 1990. As for quoting John Trudell, he has already revealed himself to be a collaborator with the FBI in the extradition of John Graham and has little credit among Native peoples.

Overall, RAbble itself appears dominated by middle-class reformists, the type i label WIMPs: White Intellectual Middle-class Professionals.

the struggle for the soul of Canada's social movements

Readers of this page shouldn't be surprised by commenters who espouse violent tactics and proclaim their necessity and supposed legitimacy in activist contexts.  It is nonetheless appalling and disgusting that there are those would call themselves activists working for social justice, who would try to defend the firebombing incidents on banks.  But this dilemma goes beyond particular incidents, and to a debate about the use of violent tactics in activism/protests in general, vs. the necessary and ultimately only effective methods of non-violent organizing and action.  This debate should come out into the open, as it pertains to the figurative soul of the social movements in Canada that confront neoliberalism and war.  

Will the broader, non-violent movement refuse to condemn and judge those who defend, advocate for, and perpetrate violent tactics, or will it choose principles of non-violence, and judge others' actions accordingly?  

Some wish to tinker with the word 'violence', so that destruction of property, smashing and burning, destroying things, isn't considered violent.  This is a complete fallacy, an assertion with no weight whatsoever.  Violent tactics serve to discredit the entire, broader movement.  Those who embrace violent tactics cling to the moniker 'diversity of tactics' as it provides legitimacy and justification to an 'anything goes' type of approach to social movements.  It is also a comfortable position to take for non-violent activists and organizations who do 'not wish to judge' users/advocaters of violence, and who perceive such judging as disruptive and divisive in social movements.  

I believe there is division in social movements - namely between those who defend and advocate for the use of violent tactics, and those who prefer non-violence on principle.  While those such as Alex Hundert argue that violent tactics are effective, I and many others would argue the complete contrary.  In his post on Rabble from March, Alex employs violent rhetoric to tell non-violent activists to 'at least get out of the way' if they're not prepared to 'stand up and fight'.  But his approach, and others who like to label themselves some form of anarchist all too often, is merely to create a spectacle that supposedly shows the state as violent and repressive - so Alex derides police, for instance, as 'hired thugs for statism'.  

I argue in response [15] to this type of mentality that any activism using violence is ultimately futile, and only perhaps effective for the perpetrator as a form of catharsis, that gives vent to their rage, but which only serves to tar the wider non-violent movement with the brush of violence, making its arguments all the more easily marginalized and dismissed.  I don't believe that those using violent tactics really care about these dynamics, however, because there is an essential mentality of 'my way or the highway' - an elitist, nihilist, sectarian bent toward violence that sees violent tactics as the only type that could be effective, while ignoring the fact that the only true effect in social movements of these futile and destructive gestures is to help discredit the wider movements that are working hard to put forward alternatives, like the Halifax Coalition [16], labour unions, and many others.   

The term 'diversity of tactics' ends up being a tacit (or explicit) justification of the use of violent methods [17], and for this reason, social movements need to leave it aside.  Instead, we ought to be taking the initiatve as individuals and organizations to yes, judge those who would use violent tactics and to feel free to identify their methods and contributions as destructive and utterly un-useful and counter-productive toward struggles against neoliberalism and war, and the accompanying attempts to build a better world.  

OTTAWA ANARCHISTS RELEASE STATEMENT ON RBC ARSON

Despite widespread claims by the media, there is no indication that the recent "firebombing" of an RBC bank branch in Ottawa was carried out by anarchists.

Nowhere in the statement or video that was published online was it claimed that those responsible were anarchists.

For the media to claim that this is the work of anarchists without any evidence is the worst sort of red-baiting and gets a F grade in basic journalism.

We have no idea what the politics of those who did this are. We also can't rule out the possibility that this act was carried out by agent-provocators.

"This act should also be put in the context of the significant violence that is perpetrated on a daily basis by the state capitalist system such as the violence of war, poverty, colonialism and environmental destruction. While we seek to build resistance based on mass movements of working and oppressed peoples, we understand why people are angry at the banks", says Common Cause Ottawa member Kyle James.

Anarchism is not about violence and chaos. Anarchism is about creating a highly organized and democratic society, free of hierarchy and exploitation.

As anarchists, we support the building of revolutionary, democratic, mass movements that will challenge capitalism directly through labour and community organizing and mass direct action such as strikes, picket lines and occupations.

We believe in the power of millions of working-class people standing together against the bankers, bosses, and their state. We need unlimited general strikes of all workers right across Canada and internationally to defeat the attacks on the working class by the capitalists.

Workers, including bank workers, have nothing to fear from anarchists. Together the working class has the power to shut this entire system down and work for our own needs instead of the profits of the bosses.

Common Cause is an Ontario anarchist organization with branches in Ottawa, London, Toronto and Hamilton.

For more information please contact:
Common Cause
http://linchpin.ca [19]
commoncauseontario@gmail.com [20]

I'd like to respond to 'fluidity' above - looking on linchpin.ca, the 'statement' from "Ottawa anarchists' is not easy to find - perhaps you'd like to point to it more effectively?  I would submit that if you speak on behalf of "Ottawa anarchists" as you purport to you ought to put this 'statement' out in the open (but the inference that you speak on behalf of 'Ottawa anarchists' is really silly, because it's a philosophical tradition - like one marxist from Ottawa claiming to speak on behalf of 'Ottawa marxists'... )

But more to the point: the comment you reproduce from your statement above essentially seeks to 'play down' the significance of the firebombing - it should be 'placed in context'?  Does that mean you think it's understandable, justifiable?  You're dancing around the point here.  Perhaps it's because you think violence is a justifiable or preferable 'tactic'?  If so, I'd come back to the point that violence might be effective in venting your rage, but not for anything else, and certainly not in seeking social justice... 

By not coming out with a strong condemnation of violence, organizations and individuals are complicit in giving sanction to that violence - this is the struggle for the soul of Canadian social movements that I refer to above... 

"Placing something in context" is not the same as "justifying" it.

Nor does failing to make a "strong condemnation" amount to "complicity".

Please check your hyperbole at the door.

We don't have to yell and condemn as loudly as the Royal Bank and the Conservative Party in order to prove our legitimacy. They do a fine enough job of denunciation and repression against dissent without any help from us.

And when one of their own allies commits violent acts (e.g. the Dziekanski scandal) you won't see them trying to outdo each other in condemning the perpetrators and demanding severe punishment.

Cui bono? Who benefits from social movements denouncing each other and cheering on the forces of repression against those who dare to strike back with one millionth of the violence perpetrated against them? 

M. Spector, no one in the social movements - the broad mass of them who support nonviolence - benefits from the minority who endorse and take part in violent tactics, it's that simple.  The tactics are ultimately only self-serving  and destructive to the movement for global justice against neoliberalism and war... and as such they deserve to be criticized, along with the moniker of 'diversity of tactics' which acts as a tacit justification.  As for the 'Ottawa anarchists', the failure to condemn in this case along with a plea for 'contextualization' (i.e., 'let's understand why this can be considered valid - the use of violence can be considered valid', says the subtext here), amounts to a tacit justification for the use of violence.  It does nothing good for the broader movement, and should be called out as such...  

For the record, ADHarden has been on an active campaign of trying to discredit and disrupt the resistance movement against the G20 over the past couple of months. His belief in non-violence is heartfelt and honest, and that he is passionate about his commitment to non-violence is certainly comendable. The fact that he thinks this gives him the right to tell other activists which are the good ones and which are the bad ones is despicable. His calling out of individuals who are yet to publicly comment on this issue is abhorrent. His utter disregard for solidarity and movement building is puzzling and makes his motives suspect.

It is one thing to preach non-violence. By all means, urge others to practice this tactic, lead by example, even a reasoned argument against violent tactics in a healthy form of discussion is welcomed. But you go to far, sir.

Cytizen H, I go as far as I feel necessary, with arguments (a staple of non-violence!), to point out the absurdity, inanity and destructiveness of the use of violent tactics as activism/protest.... for this reason, I believe the debate is crucial.  Readers, please follow what Cytizen H describes as my attempt to 'discredit and disrupt' on my blog, which hosts all of the criticism I have been aiming at those who espouse violent tactics - I felt it was important enough to publish in a public forum; it's all there - it started with my reaction [26] to a rabble piece by a former student of mine [27]... though I have had this critical attitude toward the use of 'diversity of tactics' as a source of justification and legitimation for violent tactics since I was in Quebec City in 2001.  I am simply one voice in what I believe is a critically necessary debate.  

ADHarden>

I think it's irresponsible for you to try and frame your campaign against the acceptance of diversity of tactics as "debate".  You are actively attempting to shut down debate about this very important issue. Much like drug prohibition makes it nearly impossible to have rational open discussion about the harms, risks and potential benefits of drug use, so tacit refusal to accept the concept of respect for diversity of tactics shuts down any useful discussion about these tactics.

In Quebec City, windows were broken randomly, police were attacked randomly. Non-violent protestors (including myself) were, time and time again caught in the fray between militant demonstrators and the police.This was before there was an agreement to respect diversity of tactics.

In Vancouver this decision to respect diversity of tactics was agreed upon. Police were not attacked except for when they were assaulting demonstrators and taking hostages. Windows broken were carefully targeted and happened during one specific march where all involved knew what to expect.

Respecting diversity of tactics means bringing things out in to the open. It means being able to make these tactics both safe (as much as possible) and effective. It means that those who feel that the usefullness of non-violent resistance within the anti-globalization has absolutely been exhuasted can do what they feel is necessary to make change without endangering others.

I think that the way you try and paint certain organizers within the movement is reductive and dangerous. Please try and remember that we are all fighting for the same thing. For equality, human rights, and justice. We can be strong together, even with different views on how to make change.

Cytizen H, judging from your comments above - especially in asserting that violent tactics could possibly be construed 'safe' and 'effective', I would say that we have a stark difference of opinion.  As I've argued, violent tactics can't be considered 'effective' - because their self-serving nature tars the broader movement with the brush of violence, making eminently sensible arguments and alternatives offered against neoliberalism and war all the more dismissable by the powers-that-be.  From my point of view (as you've gleaned), violent tactics have no place in movements against neoliberalism and war - and those who prefer them, and attempt to justify and advocate for them, are only arguably being 'effective' for themselves in achieving some kind of catharsis in venting their rage against social injustice through violence.  This is ultimately futile, in my view, as I argue in my original piece reacting to my former student... 

There is, in fact, a division in Canadian social movements (and in Europe and the US, for that matter) around the issue of the use of violent tactics or the adherence to nonviolence - this should not be glossed over, pretended it isn't there, ignored, or denied. To the contrary, a mass nonviolent movement will be stronger and more unified if it can feel free to judge the use of violence as ineffective in building and sustaining mass movements and swaying opinion.  This is the provocation that the firebombing incident offers, as well as any incident involving violent tactics - the movement (individuals, orgs) must choose.  I make the point that acceptance of 'diversity of tactics' acts as a tacit endorsement of violent tactics.  Those who would use violent tactics doubtless crave and cling to the semblance of legitimacy and justification that 'diversity of tactics' offers.  This idea ought to be left aside, and the broader non-violent movement ought to renounce violence and feel free to judge those who would use violence...

You write "In Vancouver this decision to respect diversity of tactics was agreed upon. Police were not attacked except for when they were assaulting demonstrators and taking hostages. Windows broken were carefully targeted and happened during one specific march where all involved knew what to expect."  This type of characterization leads me to believe that you are someone who accepts and advocates for violent tactics, even though you profess nonviolence... I would submit that you are in a position of contradiction... and need to choose.  My central point is that 'choosing' 'diversity of tactics' is not, in fact, a choice between violence and nonviolence, but rather a tacit (or explicit) justification/acceptance of violent tactics...

how is it that this was the blood being spilt? how about the actual blood spilt everyday by the corporations RBC funds and the uncaring and uncritical lifestyles of the executives of the RBC.  while it could be piggies trying to false-flag... either way some insurrectionary resistance to boil up the diversity in our resistance movement (system) is always good, the most diverse natural systems are the strongest, it would be silly to think any different for a social system that is a part of the larger natural system.  plus, there has been ongoing destruction of RBC property in ottawa for quite some time, windows broken in the lead up to the olympics

we cant have "alt media" reporting in such an uncritical way as saying that this was blood being spilt, no one was harmed, other than maybe some singes on the perpetrators of the fire.  there is blood being spilt everyday through capitalism, colonialism, and a public unwilling to take responsibilities for their government or economic system.

ADH has been going after Alex Hundert and AW@L for a few weeks now, which sparked AW@L's statement on DoT: http://peaceculture.org/drupal/DoT

ADH, you should be using your energies against the perpetrators of state and corporate violence and oppression, not those who, in their diverse ways, are trying to stop it.  you may be happy to live your life out with this same system of violence, asking the powers that be, to not be so mean, but others do not wish for the inhumanities of the state and corporations to continue any longer.

ADHarden>

I am far from trying to deny or ignore the current division (which has always existed) within the anti-capitalist movement in NA. In fact, I hold you and your ilk responsible for it; Those who engage in widespread personal campaigns against organizers who do prolific work for the good of the rights of the oppressed.

You claim that violent action can only be useful as catharsis and this must be what those who practice it get out of it. What can you possibly be basing this on? Your own beliefs? Fine. Then say that. Drop this bourgeois paternalistic bulls#it rhetoric of I know what's best and anyone who desn't agree is bad. No one is trying to prevent you from practicing non-violence or even preaching it.

You claim that examining the definition of what constitutes violence is irrelevant. This couldn't be farther from the truth. We acknowledge the fact that emotional violence is possible without any physical damage being done. We acknowledge the concepts of economic, structural, and systemic violence. You don't even seem to be clear on your own definition. Destruction of property=violence=bad? In Vancouver a tent-city was formed on a development site. An amazing example of non-violent diret action. But a fence had to be damaged to get in there. So, was this a despicable violent act? Should those involved be universally condemned? Are they war-mongers?

You say I have contradicted myself. You are wrong. I chose non-violence as my path. I do not claim to know the right path for others. I would rather stand along side the black bloc than with anyone who denies people the right to chose their path of resistance.

Completely agree with Dan and others.

Could be false-flag, but I hope not, because if it's sincere, it shows some much needed conviction.

In Vancouver, we've had native warriors acknowledge that some bad noise is long over-due from the rest of us, they've been leading by example with their militancy at the blockades, and they were pleasantly surprised by the Feb 13th Anti-Olympic demo.

Safe to say we need to do a hell of a lot more than blogging and arguing ideology with each other.

I'm bored to tears by this pacifist sanctimony over every little thing beyond polite letter campaigns, get over yourselves.

Bunch of raging narcissists always trying to snipe from the assumed moral highground.

Your captive audience literally consists of the few dozen patient activists that bother to argue with you. 

The grim economic realities the youth are facing will inevitably result in more and more militant radicalization, I suggest you learn how to talk to them without being so condescending. 

ADH> Your little crusade against people who might have been your allies MUST be cathartic. At least I certainly hope you get something out of it.

It's interesting that the idea of narcissism comes up - I think violent tactics in protest are the pinnacle of a narcissistic practice... since they do nothing to build up the broader movement, but rather portray/tar the broader movement and help in the dismissing of its offering up of alternatives... but then, perhaps at work behind the espousal of violent tactics is the idea that negotiation and reform within the state is simply impossible or not preferable, for instance.  This would fit with invectives against police as 'hired thugs for statism', for example.  Condemning the whole idea of the state would be indicative of a non-compromising attitude that would prefer violent acts as the 'only' way to achieve social transformation away from neoliberalism and war.  There are myriad nonviolent ways to work toward this type of social transformation, and the use of violent tactics by a few who claim to be working for social justice represents a wholly different approach.  It's been my aim to distinguish between these approaches and offer some opinions on the nature of the distinction... 

Yes, I've heard 'pacifist sanctimony', or the more frequent 'dogmatic pacifism', etc.  But folks, in the end, breaking stuff, smashing stuff, setting fire to stuff, hitting people, throwing things at people, causing damage, or knowingly going about eliciting a violent response from police by behaving violently toward them, etc., these are all violent tactics.  But rather than charge one another with sanctimony (I could similarly indulge in it, but what's the point? -we're really just arguing differing points of view), let's leave it to individuals and individual organizations to make the decision about whether to tacitly support violent tactics by endorsing a 'diversity of tactics', or to identify with nonviolence, and then 'talk and walk' nonviolence if that's what they choose.  On violence, I'm a follower of Johan Galtung - a Norweigian, who innovated talk of 'structural violence' in 1969, but who advocated strongly and consistently for peace by peaceful means only... 

On a more reflective note, the polarization evident in this dialogue is indicative.. but it's interesting to step back.  On one side of the polarization, you get 'doing violence is supportable!  We should break and smash stuff, set fire to stuff!  Hit people!'  And on the other, you get similarly uncompromising nonviolence.  Again, folks have to choose their values... in the search and struggle for social transformation away from neoliberalism and war... 

ADHarden>

I do appreciate your (slightly) less antagonistic and condescending tone here.

A few points I still think are worth addressing though.

1) Your insistence that violent actions tar the broader social justice movement. This need not be so. This is true because of the way mainstream media chooses to portray activists (see this http://bit.ly/cD0EBg National Post article for the worst example of this). I am constantly surprised by the willingness of people who are clearly extremely intelligent and well educated to buy into mainstream media narratives.

2)Your constant apologizing for the police. I do not understand this. The police in Toronto are, by their own admission, racists. They terrorize communities and regularly murder civilians. If you're so quick to defend them, and characterize protecting people from them as disgusting violence, I wonder whose side you're on.

3) You're statement that being against the idea of a state is indicative of an unwillingness to compromise. Perhaps this is the crux of it all. You're telling anarchists that they're wrong for being anarchists. At least that's what I gather from your statements. Because someone doesn't agree with the idea of statism doesn't meant that they believe that only violent action is effective. That is not what anarchism means and that is not what diversity of tactics means. Diversity of tactics means diversity of tactics. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

4) You do continue to deliberately over simplify the argument of those who support diversity of tactics. You write that "On one side of the polarization, you get 'doing violence is supportable!  We should break and smash stuff, set fire to stuff!  Hit people!' That's a huge leap from supporting acts of violent resistance to "we should hit people". This is deliberate reductiveism and, I believe, a continued attempt on your part to humiliate people you disagree with.

I have yet to see any evidence that adharden is fighting for anything other than "Pacifism" and the disruption of social movements by demanding that activists with differing tactical views have an obligation to denounce each other in public.

M. Spector >
You make a good point, but I'm willing to give harden the benefit of the doubt. I find it really hard to believe that anyone would argue as maniacally about anything if they didn't have some belief that the underlying cause worth (un)fighting for. 
It is interesting, however, to compare his tone in his most recent post:
"But rather than charge one another with sanctimony (I could similarly indulge in it, but what's the point? -we're really just arguing differing points of view)"
compared to his first post:
"It is nonetheless appalling and disgusting that there are those would call themselves activists working for social justice, who would try to defend the firebombing incidents on banks"

Hey Cytizen H, I meant rather than indulge in accusing other commenters of being sanctimonious... etc., what's the point... but at any rate, I think the arguments are all out here for folks to consider... 

Hi all,

I would respectfully request that you join the ongoing discussion in babble. The left in this country is not so fucking huge that we can afford to have separate little discussions on the same issue on the same website. Please feel welcome and join in. Your views will be appreciated there.

Unionist

Please take a look at this for an interesting analysis of the firebombing

http://hammerhearts.wordpress.com/