Royal Bank of Canada Firebombed in Ottawa: Communique

If this thread is ugly it is, IMHO, due to radical insinuations made about the actors behind this tactic, or radical insinuations about this tactic in general, and the euphemisms to describe the actors.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

I will agree with Snert to some degree on this.  Bombs are the tools of cowards, and people who don't care a whole lot about who they may hurt.

If you feel so justified in using this level of violence, then do it right.   Look them in the eye as your Bowie knife feels around for their aorta.

Violence at a distance is the trademark of the upper class.

Sydney Morning Herald wrote:

Full of bravado, Annan demonstrates his slingshot, pulling the rubber back and forth, aimed at a sniper, real or imaginary, in a nearby building. At his feet is a pile of rocks and lumps of concrete to hurl at oncoming troops. In his back pocket is a homemade rocket launcher fashioned from bamboo and scrap metal, to shoot fireworks at soldiers and police helicopters. They are a feeble riposte to the rifles and M-16s of the soldiers crouched behind sandbags and razor wire a few hundred metres away.

http://www.marxist.com/revolution-and-counter-revolution-in-thailand.htm

War between the classes is hardly a level playing field.

Of course the real test of anybody's speculations here will be what happens at the G8/G20. I suspect that protesters will be kept further away(farther out of comera range), pepper spray will come out a little faster, the real issues will have to share media time with punditry about how violence has been averted by what some might call police over-zealousness(but was just justifiable caution), "security" budgets will be increased significantly(at the regettable expense of cuts to things like intelligent foreign aid), and on and on.

One real giva-away is the idea that group identifying itself as "anarchist" would do this kind of fairly pointless thing - nihilists might, but that's an entirely different animal. As has been suggested above, a much more likely scenario is a few romantics egged on by an agent or two - it's not like this hasn't happened before.

The first question to be asked is "who benefits?" and while while police budgets and burying issues come out on the plus side, any reasonable discussion of what goes on at these sessions will be drowned in the noise.

It's sometimes dealt with by legislating some sort of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933]enabling act[/url] or another. Civil liberties are rolled back - frivolous freedom of information requests regarding corporate activities are typically denied and citing reasons of "national security", which means whatever a handful few shadow feds want it to mean. And communist party headquarters tend to be raided, political agitators, socialists, human rights advocates and social workers are sometimes rounded up, interrogated and worse, and are often thrown in prison for extended periods for refusing to confess to obscure and arbitrary charges.

I think it's worth pointing out that as a result of this, some bank tellers, security guards and cleaners - none of whom are highly paid - may be out of work for some time. That'll show RBC - their loss is near-completely insured, the workers' loss is not.

I wonder what Fantino was doing the night of the blast? If cui bono were the sole means of divining suspects our Julian would be at the top of the suspect list for this one.

Doug wrote:

I think it's worth pointing out that as a result of this, some bank tellers, security guards and cleaners - none of whom are highly paid - may be out of work for some time. That'll show RBC - their loss is near-completely insured, the workers' loss is not.

And what a great way for a profitable bank that has received untold of billions worth of taxpayer handouts in the past to layoff workers at this time of economic crisis. They'll have ATM machines up in no time at all. Oh we had to, they'll say. Remember the terrierists.

Oh spare me. This isn't about being anti-anarchist or bourgeois (dollars to donuts the people who did this are bourgeois, if they aren't cops) bring pro-bank or pro-secutity, it's about being anti-stupidity.

Acts like this do absolutely nothing to bring dowm the state or advance the cause. They do everything to give justification to state repression, heightened security and aggressive policing.

Whoever blew up the bank acted in the interests of the cops and the state. That's why they either a) are cops b) people egged on and set up by cops or c) incredibly stupid

Doug, I'll play the devil's advocate. The cost of repairing the building may require contract and full-time construction workers, electricians that may be laid-off (and maybe their apprentices). No doubt there will be truckers bringing in the material.

In sum workers aren't out of a job. Work is just being reallocated to another industry because infrastructure needs to be produced for accumulation to continue via this retail branch.

It makes one wonder what the purpose of these arguments are when it is clear as day that capitalism requires the commission of violence against expendible labour. Do you think any of the mid-to-high level managers will be out of work because of this?

----

I'm pissed to see Polly B go. Elbbab sucks.

aka Mycroft wrote:

  Acts like this do absolutely nothing to bring dowm the state or advance the cause. They do everything to give justification to state repression, heightened security and aggressive policing.

One wonders how on earth the forces of capitalism could have ever managed to hang on this long were it not for the occasional pretext offered up through the actions of malcontents. Unfortunately, it appears that even indigenous experts of circumstance around the world, from North, Central and South America, the occupied territories of the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Afghanistan would be hard pressed to explain their interpretation of justification in terms that you would understand.

aka Mycroft wrote:

Oh spare me. This isn't about being anti-anarchist or bourgeois (dollars to donuts the people who did this are bourgeois, if they aren't cops) bring pro-bank or pro-secutity, it's about being anti-stupidity. Acts like this do absolutely nothing to bring dowm the state or advance the cause. They do everything to give justification to state repression, heightened security and aggressive policing. Whoever blew up the bank acted in the interests of the cops and the state. That's why they either a) are cops b) people egged on and set up by cops or c) incredibly stupid

Lets be clear here that there are three positions being posed

1) no violence ever

2) Violence is justified, and this kind of damage to property amounts to vandalism, not violence, and therefore is legitimate social protest.

3) This is not the right circumstance for violence (aka vandalism) and acts of this kind have no meaning outside of a mass movement that requires them, as part of effective struggle.

Lets be clear that those holding position 1 are opposed both to 2 and 3, even though they appear only to be opposing 2. Lets also be clear that those arguing 2, might also hold position 3, but are resisting the position posed by those holding position 1 on principle, since they agree that their may be times when a mass movement requires acts of violence, and that violence in the face of opression is sometimes desirable.

I have to say though, really nice for these so-called anarchists to try to deflect police attention from themselves to First Nations activists with their rhetoric. I'm sure their hoping police will raid a reserve rather than the leafy upper middle class neighbourhood they probably grew up inn.

I make peaceful protests every time I go to the bank. Most people do, as far as I know. That said, I did think communique was a little complex, and might have had more resonance with more people if it had just said: "Fuck the banks".

Lets be clear here that there are three positions being posed

1) no violence ever

2) Violence is justified, and this kind of damage to property amounts to vandalism, not violence, and therefore is legitimate social protest.

3) This is not the right circumstance for violence (aka vandalism) and acts of this kind have no meaning outside of a mass movement that requires them (as part of effective struggle) and therefore are counter-productive.

Lets be clear that those holding position 1 are opposed both to 2 and 3, even though they appear only to be opposing 2. Lets also be clear that those arguing 2, might also hold position 3, but are resisting the position posed by those holding position 1 on principle, since they agree that there may be times when a legitimate mass movement requires acts of violence, and that violence in the face of opression is sometimes desirable.

Quote:

Lets be clear here that there are three positions being posed

1) no violence ever

2) Violence is justified, and this kind of damage to property amounts to vandalism, not violence, and therefore is legitimate social protest.

3) This is not the right circumstance for violence (aka vandalism) and acts of this kind have no meaning outside of a mass movement that requires them (as part of effective struggle) and therefore are counter-productive.

If we're going to be clear, let's also acknowledge that there's a bit of necessary context to all of this.

I'm going to suggest that here in Canada, where we're all free to vote, to publish, to build consensus, to form a political party, to run for office, and to appeal to the laws of the land, I think option number 1 makes the most sense. I'm terribly sorry if something like "consensus building" or "community organizing" are harder than making a pipe bomb, but please let's not pretend that any violent agitator in Canada is being "forced" into violence.

Now if you're a Palestinian kid holding a rock, that's a different story. But somehow, discussions of Canadian anarchists trashing something always seem to end up at that kid holding the rock. "Are you REALLY saying no to violent resistance???" someone will ask, referring to the kid with the rock (but presumably hoping to leverage the answer into approval for that Canadian anarchist too).

If we want to be honest, I think the question above needs to be asked twice: once for non-Canadians, many of them genuinely oppressed and genuinely without non-violent options, and the other for us, acknowledging that we DO have options, less exciting though they may be.

Intersting. Snert seems to have expressed a straight forward and sincere opinion. See the bank vandalism is having positive effects even here.

Cueball wrote:

Intersting. Snert seems to have expressed a straight forward and sincere opinion. See the bank vandalism is having positive effects even here.

Well, I was hoping to close this thread for length but sadly, statica opened a new one here. Please continue there if you must.

And I hope Polly B just meant she was "outta" this thread, which is a wise decision I hope many will follow. If not, come back soon Polly!

Closing for length.