Royal Bank Firebombed in Ottawa Part Three
In a case like this, in which there are major summits upcoming in this country - summits in which, going by recent past practice, we SHOULD EXPECT the government(s) to organize some agents provocateurs to discredit opposition to the nefarious and sinister policies that are developed and agreed to at these summits - it's rather obvious who benefits. And no, I don't mean the police. The police carry out orders. I mean their political masters.Sort of like Nixon's "rent a hippie" at the 1972 convention in Miami?
And the huge numbers of FBI infiltrators and police provocateurs in the crowds at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. According to materials received by a member of the Chicago Seven in a Freedom of Information Act request, one out of every six people in Lincoln and Grant Parks was in the above categories.
I support the attacks on the Kabul and Kandahar bases by the heroic Afghan insurgents - regardless of what party or ideology they espouse. They are fighting an armed occupation and they will win.
I have utter contempt for the cowards who torched a bank branch in Ottawa, allegedly because they didn't like the Olympics or some other such self-indulgent fantasy. They are fighting against the Canadian people and they will lose.
Humour and distain is the only response your double standard deserves.
"Disdain", SJ. By the way, what do you think of the attacks in Kabul and Kandahar? Since you're scorning "double standards", I'd appreciate knowing what standards you abide by. In a faceoff between a Taliban and a Canadian soldier, if one must perish, which shall it be? Just trying to follow your intricate verbiage.
This is really problematic. Your statements are based on ignorance and hate. The people who ADHarden is describing are far more than adrenaline junkies. These people are prolific organizers who do tremendous amount of work in non-violent direct action. This moves toward proving my point that ADHarden is deliberately trying to discredit some of the hardest working activists in this community today. The people you call assholes are the same ones who are working around the clock right now to make sure that activists of all sorts who are coming in for the G20 can be housed and fed while they are here. They have worked tirelessly on behalf of the oppressed communities in this province. So what are you talking about? Where is your information coming from? Try talking to people rather than calling them out.
Well, I'm ignorant so far as I don't know who these folks are. But you claim different. Does this mean you know who firebombed the bank?
Do the Mounties need to be talking to you??
More questions: have you ever been around truly violent people, the sort who gleefully break another person's nose to see the blood, the kind who set bombs in the hope of hurting people? In the course of my job, I have been around such people. Giving psychopaths a legitimate role in our movements is NOT something we want to be doing, and a slippery slope we should not be going down.
"Disdain", SJ. By the way, what do you think of the attacks in Kabul and Kandahar? Since you're scorning "double standards", I'd appreciate knowing what standards you abide by. In a faceoff between a Taliban and a Canadian soldier, if one must perish, which shall it be? Just trying to follow your intricate verbiage.
Really Unionist, a Bushesque with us or against us question? You can do better than that.
Really Unionist, a Bushesque with us or against us question? You can do better than that.
The difference between Bush and us is that he is on the [i]other side[/i] - not that he demands to know which side you're on.
You posit your binary "double standard" accusation, then refuse to say what standard you prefer.
I say where I stand. In very stark terms. Are you with the Canadian/NATO invaders, or against them? I'm against them. When Afghans rise up against them, I open laudatory posts and threads.
And if some asshole adventurers in Canada burned down a Canadian Forces building or vandalized some equipment, apart from a mass movement to stop Canada's aggression, I would condemn them just as surely and uncompromisingly as I condemn the criminal jerks who torched the bank.
See that, SJ? My standard, One standard. What's yours?
It's evident that you are having difficulty in understanding the extent of the everyday oppression, exploitation, and planetary mutilation occurring under your very nose. You fail to comprehend the scope of a system which occupies and subjugates wherever it treads. Our traditional compliance doesn't merit the form of responses that are reserved for the non-compliant in other places, yet somehow you believe the extreme spectacle of corporate violence that other lands endure would never be meted out here. In that sense, there is no lie I suppose, because at least we can depend on toadying negotiators from the centre left to render all of that unnecessary. Lucky for us.
I can't exactly recall what it was that necessitated the stroll past a 12th story window in the North Tower of 101 Colonel By Drive on that Fall day back in 2001. Whatever it was couldn't have been all that important, as I vividly recall being riveted at length to the panorama unfolding in the streets below, during the IMF gathering at the Government Conference Centre on Rideau Street.
Atop most of the buildings along the lower end of Elgin St. and Colonel By Dr. adjacent to the Rideau Mall, I spotted sniper nests which were positioned to cover the barricaded approaches to the National War Memorial and a secondary barricade nearer to the bridge that turns Wellington St. into Rideau. Some of the sniper teams were armed with what appeared to be Barrett 50 rifles judging by the size of their muzzle suppressors, which is a peculiar choice of weapon to say the least for urban crowd control. At the last barricade before the bridge a double row of riot police stood behind the metal barrier. Back along Colonel By Dr. adjacent to the Weston Hotel, additional phalanxes of riot police were drawn up in formation and held in reserve. Underneath the Rideau Mall complex on the road that connects Colonel By with Nicholas St, additional rows of marching police could be seen through a gap in the canopy of buildings. Nearby at an Armoury off of Queen Elizabeth Dr, eight wheeled armoured vehicles with mounted machine guns were hidden behind large double doors which were partially open.
The protestors advanced westward on Laurier, turning left at Elgin, and then left again at Slater to access Queen and Wellington in front of the Hill. A smaller group broke off from the main assembly at the intersection of Slater and Elgin, and proceeded to tear away the first line of barricades near the War Memorial, traversing an open no person's land to a secondary line of unoccupied metal barriers. At that point they began hurling what appeared to be paving stones and other material in the direction of the bridge, to where the double row of police stood waiting. A barrage of enveloping tear gas plumes greeted their approach, as the sniper teams began observing through their scopes the individuals now occupying the open space. In response, a few hardy individuals offered a selection of obscene gestures slightly beyond barrier number two, however the group decided not to press ahead further, as it appeared they sensed the provocation would trigger an escalation from the police.
Meanwhile along the route chosen by the main group of protestors, little police presence was detected aside from a few marked cars which served as traffic directors at the intersections. I surmised that this was the officially agreed upon route with the requisite permissions in place. Little trouble was expected from this gaggle as a result, and rumour had it at 101, along with a routine notice to expect minor traffic disruptions, that a few opposition MPs were taking in the stroll as well.
While standing at the window wearing a uniform of the state, taking in the theatre of operations at the street level, I couldn't altogether stifle a sense of admiration for the insolence of the group who decided to directly challenge the apparatus arrayed against them, while the sentiment for the main group was one of humour and distain. The reflections most likely arose from an ingrained soldier's perspective regarding front line efforts in comparison to individuals with no particular purpose who would prefer to lollygag and leisure far to the rear of where the action is taking place.
Had the smaller group known of the various levels of response that potentially awaited them, their impudence might have taken on more of an epic ambience. It appeared from that vantage point that the main group for all intents and purpose, had abandoned the smaller group to whatever fate awaited them as they continued to their own objective on Wellington Street, the purpose of which wasn't altogether clear.
I thought of possible scenarios that might have had a different outcome towards impressing upon the IMF representatives safely ensconced behind the scene, the collective objections of the masses below. I couldn't arrive at any. Had the more rebellious faction stayed along the approved route, or had the larger group joined in with their own paving stone escapades, or perhaps with something entirely more dramatic such as attempting to push through the first double row of police, the result would have been largely the same, except perhaps for the resulting casualties that might have wound up laying in the street, and the beatings and arrests of course. In any event, business as usual would have been the order of the day inside the conference centre, regardless if it were twenty or twenty thousand people attempting to storm the barricades, or twenty thousand or two hundred thousand staying within the boundaries laid out for them by the police along the march route.
Since that time, I have tried to envision the societal progress that have may been influenced using either of the approaches that I witnessed that day, and likewise have not been able to detect anything of lasting substance. In fact, much of the progress that has been achieved over the past four decades or so has been stagnant for quite some time, reversed in many areas, and indeed all of it is threatened under relentless pressure from a combination of the right, the righteous, careerist middle ground sycophants, and abetted by those who believe that the worst excesses of these wretched and ruthless instruments of oblivion can be ameliorated through bargaining and compromise.
Dozens of similar conferences and summits have taken place since 2001, the G8, G20, IMF, World Bank, etc, where the record of decisions have been laid bare upon humanity in the form of unmitigated disasters, one after another, all of which has taken a dreadful toll of lives and the environment. This system has long ceased to have any beneficial purpose whatsoever, except to secure the wealth the few, while consigning the many to increased levels of misery and destruction, that which perpetual market growth dictates and cannot survive without. It will never cease forcing humanity along its catastrophic trajectory to the ruination of the entire planet and its inhabitants, and if necessary at gunpoint over the bodies of everyone who would dare stand in its way.
These administrations of misery exist to methodically separate humanity into categories which either please them through servitude, or annoy them and therefore must be dealt with. They reign everywhere using a combination of shit media, entertainment, pornographic exploitation which renders even bodily innards into spectacles of commodity, and above all, a proclivity towards violent destruction on a gargantuan scale. An elementary review of the past ten years alone suffices to understand the scale of this menace.
In the meantime we are engaged in a discussion where the primary goal is to castigate a few nocturnal pyromaniacs, while counselling the path of peaceful change and gradual influence through co-existence. We make comparisons between the legal and illegal, between innocents and criminals. Meanwhile, the master criminals are left in peace as the society they created requires, and the innocents continue to be trodden down and wiped out regardless of any form of entreaty. We're expected, as is being demanded here, to take our place in no person's land as the best possible solution, while elitist representatives barter amongst one another over a few crumbs and a few tenuous rights that the system may bestow in its lighter moments, knowing full well that what is given can be just as easily taken away in any crisis that they choose to manufacture. The choice before us is collaboration with an unyielding agenda of systemic annihilation, or a paradigm where survival at the cost of revolt becomes necessary, along with the inherent and unavoidable cruelties of both paths.
There's a spartan cabin deep within the NL forest that I appreciate whenever travel finds its way. Cottage is too grand of a description. The trickle from a nearby brook appears to let off a generous and stimulating effect at dawn, more so than any other point during the day. The same could be said of course for a mug of beer and the fattest joint my fingers could manage at that hour. I suppose there are alternatives with which to spell away the time being.
I have utter contempt for the cowards who torched a bank branch in Ottawa, allegedly because they didn't like the Olympics or some other such self-indulgent fantasy. They are fighting against the Canadian people and they will lose.
We don't know these bank bombers, so it's hard to speak to their motivations, position in society, levels of self-indulgence, etc. But the Olympic resistance movement was for from being self-indulgent fantasy. The colonial practices of the IOC are very real, and the effects of the olympics and the underlying issues didn't go away when the olympics left town.
The indigenous comunities in this country are oppressed. The decision to stand or act in solidarity with the warriors of these communities is not something to dismiss so callously. A fight against the banks, and HBC, and the state is not a fight against the canadian people. It's a fight for those among us who are oppressed.
More questions: have you ever been around truly violent people, the sort who gleefully break another person's nose to see the blood, the kind who set bombs in the hope of hurting people? In the course of my job, I have been around such people. Giving psychopaths a legitimate role in our movements is NOT something we want to be doing, and a slippery slope we should not be going down.
In answer to this question, yes. I have. But that is completely irrelevant. Now, do you have an actual point? This debate is important and I'm happy to engage in thoughtful discussion over the concept of respect for diversity of tactics. If you want to dismiss large groups of people you've never met as psychopaths I don't think there's much chance of reasoned debate here.
Toronto’s G20 Summit organizers have renewed a call to bolster police ranks by 500 officers after a Royal Bank of Canada branch in Ottawa was firebombed by anarchists this week, the National Post has learned.“The bombing, obviously, spooked people,” said a Montreal police officer who asked for anonymity.
Officers from that city’s force, and others, were told they could book their vacations during the summit dates and earn double-time pay while working 12-hour shifts for nine days straight in the days leading up to and during the summit.
The request suggests that Toronto can expect to see a heavy police presence long before dignitaries start arriving in motorcades.
Montreal police have experience in crowd control, having been called to provide security to major events in the past, most notably the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec City.
Officers from out of town would have all travel expenses and room and board paid for, and would not be expected to be on the front lines as many are unable to bring their riot gear with them.
“It’s a good deal for us,” said an officer. “We’ll make some good money.”
The National Post has also learned that GTA forces have suspended approval of all new leave and vacation requests during the summit and police brass warned its officers they are “releasable” from all other case work should they be needed.
Another call to sign up officers went out after the firebombing of an RBC branch in Ottawa on Tuesday morning. After the attack, a group identifying itself only as FCCC-Ottawa posted an online video threatening to appear at the G20 summit in Toronto and the G8 summit near Huntsville next month.
Meaghan Gray, a spokeswoman for the G20 Integrated Security Unit, acknowledged that organizers have requested support from police forces across the country, but said she wasn’t aware of any specific request brought on by Tuesday’s firebombing.
“These arrangements have been underway for quite some time, well before any one specific incident,” she said, noting that officers specially trained in crowd control are of particular interest.
Oh I love the National Post. This article is so ridculous it hurts.
In the first paragraph they write:
"Toronto's G20 Summit organizers have renewed a call to bolster police ranks by 500 officers after a Royal Bank of Canada branch in Ottawa was firebombed by anarchists this week, the National Post has learned."
Second last paragraph:
"Meaghan Gray, a spokeswoman for the G20 Integrated Security Unit, acknowledged that organizers have requested support from police forces across the country, but said she wasn't aware of any specific request brought on by Tuesday's firebombing."
This is aweseome. These guys are such a joke! Their entire source is an anonymous Montreal cop who thinks people are spooked. Now THAT is journalism.
Now, do you have an actual point? This debate is important and I'm happy to engage in thoughtful discussion over the concept of respect for diversity of tactics. If you want to dismiss large groups of people you've never met as psychopaths I don't think there's much chance of reasoned debate here.
I did make a point, though I see I didn't make it clearly, and need to elucidate further:
Giving psychopaths a legitimate role in our movements is NOT something we want to be doing, and a slippery slope we should not be going down.
I was not name-calling here, but referring to a psychiatric diagnosis. I am saying that violent tactics will attract psychopaths to progressive movements; people who like to hurt people for fun. If we adopt tactics that empower psychopaths, surely we are no better than the oppressors.
Also, if we legitimize violent tactics, how do we tell who the agents provocateurs are?
Now, do you have an actual point? This debate is important and I'm happy to engage in thoughtful discussion over the concept of respect for diversity of tactics. If you want to dismiss large groups of people you've never met as psychopaths I don't think there's much chance of reasoned debate here.I did make a point, though I see I didn't make it clearly, and need to elucidate further:
Giving psychopaths a legitimate role in our movements is NOT something we want to be doing, and a slippery slope we should not be going down.I was not name-calling here, but referring to a psychiatric diagnosis. I am saying that violent tactics will attract psychopaths to progressive movements; people who like to hurt people for fun. If we adopt tactics that empower psychopaths, surely we are no better than the oppressors.
Also, if we legitimize violent tactics, how do we tell who the agents provocateurs are?
It occurs to me psychopaths already control the world's economy and the governments of most nations, and in particular Western nations, and most of the political and social institutions. I don't think we have to worry about them being drawn to protest movements when they already have firm ownership of the established order.
As for agent provacateurs, well, as most people rely on the MSM for their news, they will never learn what any protestor is really about anyway. Since NAFTA, there have probably been, globally, hundreds of protests, almost all peaceful, but how much has any Canadian learnt, through the media, about the motivation of the protestors and why they are protesting? I'll bet sweet f all.
Whether one approves or disapproves of the action againt the RBC branch, it is all irrelevent to how the protest movement will be presented in the media or the perception of the protestors that will be cultivated for public consumption. The MSM will render the protests a non-event, except as a sideshow to the really important suit stuff, unless there is actual violence, and the message of the protests will never be permitted a fair hearing except in the alternative media.
I would add violent tactics are entirely legitimate depending on who is using them. At the protests where the QPP officers were uncovered as agents provacatuers, was either arrested and charged and tried? Was there discipline? No? Why not? Because they were doing their job which was to commit violent acts to justify a greater violent response by police and the state.
I am saying that violent tactics will attract psychopaths to progressive movements; people who like to hurt people for fun. If we adopt tactics that empower psychopaths, surely we are no better than the oppressors.
Also, if we legitimize violent tactics, how do we tell who the agents provocateurs are?
Aha. I see what you were saying. I'm curious though, do you consider the violent acts (window breaking, fighting cops, etc) that have been present over the last decade at anti-globalization protests in North America to be work of psychopaths? Or are you worried that the showing a respect for diversity of tactics will attract psychopaths who have never been attracted to the movement before?
If it is the former, I would argue that this has not been the work of psychopaths, but rather that of very angry individuals. Oppression in this country is very real, and i think it is felt in a very real way. this causes anger. some people's anger leads them to violence. if we say to these people "your tendencies towards wanting to break things is wrong. you have no place in our fight" how can we ever hope to persuade them act non-violently? in an earlier post i likened this hardline stance against violent direct action to drug prohibition. because pot, for example is illegal, the important conversations about the health risks and social costs of marijuana aren't being had in the open. pot is great. for some. violence, i think, is useful. sometimes. there are really important discussions that must be had about when violence is useful, when it is appropriate, when its not. we need to open up the possibility of discussing this. i don't think psychopaths will be attracted to carefully planned, discussed and meticulously organized demonstrations that involve some aspect of property destruction.
as for the question about agent provocateurs... this is a good question to which i certainly would not profess to have the answers.
Aha. I see what you were saying. I'm curious though, do you consider the violent acts (window breaking, fighting cops, etc) that have been present over the last decade at anti-globalization protests in North America to be work of psychopaths?
I can't know if they actually were, but no; breaking windows is not psychopathic behaviour.
I would argue that this has not been the work of psychopaths, but rather that of very angry individuals. Oppression in this country is very real, and i think it is felt in a very real way.
I get this; however, a common assumption is that people are committing acts of violence out of moral outrage. We don't really know this because we don't know the identities of the people doing this.
The bank bombers took off in an expensive vehicle - how oppressed could they be, really?
In 1993, there was a peaceful anti-racism demonstration in downtown Toronto that got co-opted by violent folks who broke windows, attacked hot dog vendors, and looted stores on Yonge Street. (I was in the middle of this - I phoned my husband saying, "This is such a Canadian riot. The streets are running red - with catsup.) The anti-racism people were going, what the hell? The actual protesters were not violent - it was other people who looted the stores, and I doubt their motivation was in any way political.
I have to do other stuff and don't have time to debate further today - but I'll bow out by saying, if you get violent, you lose the moral high ground.
It occurs to me psychopaths already control the world's economy and the governments of most nations, and in particular Western nations, and most of the political and social institutions. I don't think we have to worry about them being drawn to protest movements when they already have firm ownership of the established order.
No expert, but I think the pyschopaths in charge of the world economy and such, are elite in that they have all sorts of wealth and privelege and access for whatever personal historical reason. There are perhaps all sorts of 'pyschopaths' without such attributes, or maybe 'pyschopathy' is like the golden key to success?
It occurs to me psychopaths already control the world's economy and the governments of most nations, and in particular Western nations, and most of the political and social institutions. I don't think we have to worry about them being drawn to protest movements when they already have firm ownership of the established order.
No expert, but I think the pyschopaths in charge of the world economy and such, are elite in that they have all sorts of wealth and privelege and access for whatever personal historical reason. There are perhaps all sorts of 'pyschopaths' without such attributes, or maybe 'pyschopathy' is like the golden key to success?
In a way, yes. If morality, conscience, ethics, and responsibilty are of no consequence, then the only obstacles to any self enriching act are all external.
Just saying that would be the kind of stuff that should be going thru the minds of the establishment and the the people that want real change...it aint happening with sign carrying is it?????
You think they give a damn about the dangers of say gas wells etc on the general public. You think they give a damn about the people being burnt alive around storage facility's...you think they give a damn about gas hookups in everyones houshold that can blow them up. you think they give a dman about the environment hahahaha. These are serious issues also, that actually burn and kill innocent people... and life. That they threaten many people with on a daily basis with 24/7. I guess if your happy getting rare cancers from oil sand projects you can do nothing or carry a sign , but face it ...it don't worky.
I'm just saying it's about time that they feel the threat that many people do and will be feeling after they impliment there haneous policy's.Perhaps after that rbc thing they will start thinking that perhaps the natives are getting restless . All the power to the people that have the balls to bring it on home....and make them feel like they have made many innocent people feel. Believe me the threat of being burnt alive works. Trying to stop a 4 billion cubic foot methane storage facity upwind from a city will prove that point in spades.
Demonstrations don't work and exploring alternative methods is the way to go. That was just one example of fair play. Lets here some more concrete examples . What is the alternative to sign carrying and dealing with frontline piggies with weapons..I'm all ears. Come on lets here it...... exactly...that's why the rbc fire bombing thng is pure genious if not a false flag incident...if a false flag incident ..they lose also because people like me will discuss alternatives...it points to the only direction that works in a modern day conservative democracy based on intimidation, fear and threat. The Indians were right when they said whitey only understands two things ...loss of money and bloodshed. I fear they were more right than I even thought.
There should be more discussion on ways to deal with these issues that have the possibility of actually working. I just flung out one that I know would work. Actually just having this duscussion will show that even lay people like me who resort to peaceful methods of protest like music are quite capable of coming up with real militant ideas. What about the pros??? Well i think we just had a good example ..and it probably has worked.
Free speech and a vote ..that's all you get..use it or lose it!
Now what was that term...oh yes...agents provocateurs.
If there are any moderators around, could they please delete Buddy Kat's stupid posts before some shit from the MSM picks up on them?
I've flagged the posts, and emailed the mods - but it would really help if other babblers spoke out against this kind of shit.
What is this board coming to? Some bohemians tired of waiting for the people to rise up in violent revolution, so we'll kick-start it?
Pathetic - but in the case of posts like his, also very dangerous. Delete this shit please.
I agree with Unionist and all. "Civilization" is really tentative in lot's peoples minds, isn't it? Or some people like to portray leftists as thugs.
Yes let the mods edit as they will. This is still the best forum on the planet. But I would still like to hear suggestions that actually would get 8 world leaders to address the concerns of protestors.
Believe me unionist when a big burly piggy with a 25 lead pipe swings at your head and a couple ounces of your grey matter lands on the pavement you will wish that someone somewhere would of used a crossbow or anything for that matter on him. They can’t wait to lace in on “the protester”…the sooner people figure this out the better
So demonstrating has gone on for some quite sometime and one has to wonder if the whole process isn’t predictable and passé. Nowadays there are agent provocateurs instigating riots and everything can be executed with a playbook. We all know what is going to happen at the G8…tear gas …maybe some concussion grenades….broken windows and some vandalism…a 2 minute blurb on the media on how people with there faces covered started it all ..etc etc. Nothing on the real issues. All controlled by police and government.
It’s like why bother? I can see the first big demonstration ever, being the eye opener and a major news story because of its uniqueness. I think that’s what is missing. It’s kind of obvious that people marching the streets and getting their heads beaten in by a turd brained idiot who is actually taught and paid to beat people serves no purpose as they are wise to the whole idea. It’s has lost it’s luster..time for new things.
Does anybody really think the world governments are going to change their practices over something they have grown to expect and have an army of people with shields and guns as protection…no way.
Now enter the “firebomber”…. it’s actually what people aren’t supposed to do. Hey, they aren’t following the process. That’s not in the rulebook! That will have more of an effect than the now passé marching. Now they have to actually worry about their protection and how far to go. Now they have to maybe have a contingency plan in place to explain their use of excessive force. Now they may be actually threatened. Now they may have to perhaps take things a little more seriously.
I think it is unfortunate that governments are so unwilling to listen and act accordingly that things have to escalate to more and more violent tactics, but they are asking for it, and they will probably get what they ask for. Perhaps even more than they can handle.
Someone pointed out the Nixon era and if I’m not mistaken his enemy was JFK…..the republicans new the solution back then. It wasn’t demonstration..It was assassination. Why beat around the bush fighting police and rioters just go to the top and get the big honcho..And that’s exactly what they did. You want action you go to the top not playing around with the chaff. They took the bull by the horns.
The firebombing thing is sure to rattle a few cages no doubt. So actually it’s about time that the passé demonstration got some back bone that reflects the kind of intimidation and ignorance offered them by their very own government that they elect to serve them well and protect, har har har.
It’s beyond ridiculous already. We have but a few legal avenues like free speech and the vote. We sure don’t vote for our government to beat us over the head that’s for sure. That they do and plan to is beyond decency and fairness. They get what they deserve.
The rbc firebombing doesn’t seem so bad if it actually had the effect of rattling their cages and is pure genius if not a false flag incident. If it was a false flag incident then at least it has spurred discussion on the simple fact that common run of the mill demonstrations DO NOT WORK and are so common they are EXPECTED.
If I’m not mistaken , to become a member of the G8 you have to adhere to UN conventions like the ones on torture. Canada has violated them all. At the very least Canada should be booted out of the G8.so who is going to give them the boot? The people ? The media? The blogger? The hague? The UN?
Yes let the mods edit as they will. This is still the best forum on the planet. But I would still like to hear suggestions that actually would get 8 world leaders to address the concerns of protestors.
That's called desperation. That's called being on your knees. That's called, "why the hell won't they notice us?" They'll notice us when we win support of masses of people. But our aim is not to be noticed. It is to take power away from them. Demonstrations are utterly essential - but not so that the bosses will notice us.
Believe me unionist when a big burly piggy with a 25 lead pipe swings at your head and a couple ounces of your grey matter lands on the pavement you will wish that someone somewhere would of used a crossbow or anything for that matter on him. They can’t wait to lace in on “the protester”…the sooner people figure this out the better
Spare me, Buddy Kat. Far worse has been done to my people, my family, than what a few puny Canadian cops can do. That doesn't validate schoolyard threats and individual asshole heroics. Nothing does. Those who go in that direction do not only harm themselves (if they did, I wouldn't frankly give a shit). They discredit the people's struggle and drive real people away in disgust.
Arriving late to the party. Again. It was a gorgeous day here in Toronto, unlike yesterday's rainy cool drizzle. I was out and about.
aka Mycroft, regarding your post at #21, quoting Buddy Kat at #15. At this time (9:14pm EST) Buddy's post at #15 no contains no link, nor the text you quoted.
Buddy Kat. For the record, the words quoted in aka Mycroft's post, as stated by you, are unacceptable on babble. Perhaps you've removed them? If so, great, and don't post overt and potentially legally-harmful-to-rabble calls to violence like that again. And the presumably deleted link to buying a crossbow is too creepy to contemplate. I would have deleted it if it was there.
In case it's not clear, Buddy, post like that again and you will be taking a short break from babble.
While I don't agree that violence is the most effective tactic for leftist activists, the state has never felt such subtleties. Reading Pacifism As Pathology by Ward Churchill was a huge "ah ha" moment for me, and continues to be a challenge, theoretically, for me. I can't speak for those in far more desperate situations than myself.
Nor can I name any revolution, or significant overthrow of oppressors that occurred historically without some sort of violence, however much it is desired to avoid it.
Yes let the mods edit as they will. This is still the best forum on the planet. But I would still like to hear suggestions that actually would get 8 world leaders to address the concerns of protestors.
Wait until the power goes out. Then we will have their undivided attention.
An example of effective non-violent protests that will cause leadership to pause and should stand as a point of shame to our own tepid progressive political leadership:
Pacifism As Pathology:
http://zinelibrary.info/files/pap_imposed.pdf
"the history of the American [and Canadian] Left over the past decades shows too clearly that the more diluted the substance embedded in 'pacifistic practise,' the louder the insistence of its subscribers that nonviolence is the only mode of action appropriate adn acceptable within the context of North America and the greater the effort to ostracize, or even stifle divergent types of actions. Such strategic hegemony exerted by proponents of this truncated range of tactical options has done much to foreclose on whatever revolutionary potential may be said to exist in modern [North] America..
Pacifism, the ideology of non-violent political activity has become axiomatic and all but universal among the more progressive elements of contemporary mainstream North America. With a jargon ranging from a peculiar mishmash of borrowed or fabricated pseudospiritualism to 'Gramscian' notions of prefigurative socialization, pacifism appears as the common denominator, linking otherwise disparate 'white dissident' groupings...
As with most delusions designed to avoid rather than confront unpleasant truths...even the most casual review of 20th century history reveals the graphic contradictions of the pacifist posture, the costs of its continued practice and its fundamental ineffectiveness in accomplishing its purported transformative mission.
Nonetheless, we are currently beset by 'nonviolent revolutionary leaders' who habitually revise historical fact as a means of offsetting their doctrine's glaring practical deficiencies and by the spectacle of expressly pacifist organizations (apparently in all seriousness) claiming to be standing 'in solidarity' with practitioners of armed resistance in Central America, Africa and elsewhere..
"the trappings of pacifism have been subverted to establish a sort of 'politics of the comfort zone' not only akin to what Bettleheim termed 'the philosophy of business as usual' [but] .. devoid of perceived risk to its advocates.."
While I don't agree that violence is the most effective tactic for leftist activists, the state has never felt such subtleties. Reading Pacifism As Pathology by Ward Churchill was a huge "ah ha" moment for me, and continues to be a challenge, theoretically, for me. I can't speak for those in far more desperate situations than myself.
Nor can I name any revolution, or significant overthrow of oppressors that occurred historically without some sort of violence, however much it is desired to avoid it.
Don't know who here advocated pacifism, or nonviolence under all circumstances. I do know that distinctions have been made between individual acts of violence sanctioned by no mass movement and divorced from any clear aim, and violence of the kind waged by an entire people in defence of its rights. So I'm not sure what the relevance of your comment is, other than to erect a straw man to describe the position of those who characterize these arsonists as criminals acting against the people's cause.
You might also take some time, if FM and aka M won't, to delete the horrendous quotes from Buddy Kat that they have kept in their posts. Or not. It's really your choice, isn't it.
deleted
Just saying that would be the kind of stuff that should be going thru the minds of the establishment and the the people that want real change...it aint happening with sign carrying is it?????
Well, okay, but that's because no one really wants to change it all that much. The employment of violence doesn't make "us" better than "them". It only makes us the same.
At the time human society really wants to change, we will change. Until then, we bring attention to the grievances we want addressed through protest. Mostly peaceful, sometimes overly aggressive, but always in the interests of solidarity and never in surrender to hate. I don't want to be responsible for people suffering senselessy. Not even they who are responsible for so much of it.
Many people have been sharply critical of the arsonists' use of a tactic that endangered the lives of both nearby residents and the emergency workers who had to deal with the fire (there was also the possibility of there being night workers in the bank cleaning). The actions of the arsonists were irresponsible and reckless. Anyone who has had the unfortunate experience of being in a fire, fighting a fire or treating a fire victim can tell you just how dangerous a fire can be. Fire is very powerful and unpredictable and, even if it was not the intention of the arsonists to do so, it was within the realm of possibility that people could have been seriously injured and/or killed (as occurred in the Greek anti-austerity protests when a bank was firebombed, workers killed, and a huge setback to the momentum to the protests followed). We expect such disregard for human life from the major corporations themselves, not those who oppose them. It is delusional to think that any pain brought on by this action would be borne by the system of capitalism, the state, or even the RBC. You can't burn those things down. It is business as usual for all of them. In fact, this action has served their interests.
Thanks, FM, excellent and thoughtful article - hits every point that we've been discussing. I particularly appreciated this:
Whoever they are, the set of politics that the FFFC espouse is part of a wider tendency in a certain type of Left-wing politics: the tendency to seek minoritarian substitutes for mass action in the face of declining levels of popular struggle. So, when the masses ‘disappoint’ there is a tendency among highly motivated – but also isolated (and sometimes immature) – activists to imagine that there might be an alternative to mass mobilization from below. The disappointed activists may dream of some heroic saviour(s): a band of guerrillas, a terrorist group, a charismatic politician, the ‘black bloc,’ or even the military might of a foreign government. Lacking hope and realism about mass movement-building, a range of panaceas to spark an uprising are conjured up. Sometimes, as apparently in the case of the so-called FFFC, the more unstable types will even try to cast themselves in the ‘saviour’ role.
Pacifism As Pathology:
http://zinelibrary.info/files/pap_imposed.pdf
"the history of the American [and Canadian] Left over the past decades shows too clearly that the more diluted the substance embedded in 'pacifistic practise,' the louder the insistence of its subscribers that nonviolence is the only mode of action appropriate adn acceptable within the context of North America and the greater the effort to ostracize, or even stifle divergent types of actions. Such strategic hegemony exerted by proponents of this truncated range of tactical options has done much to foreclose on whatever revolutionary potential may be said to exist in modern [North] America..
Pacifism, the ideology of non-violent political activity has become axiomatic and all but universal among the more progressive elements of contemporary mainstream North America. With a jargon ranging from a peculiar mishmash of borrowed or fabricated pseudospiritualism to 'Gramscian' notions of prefigurative socialization, pacifism appears as the common denominator, linking otherwise disparate 'white dissident' groupings...
As with most delusions designed to avoid rather than confront unpleasant truths...even the most casual review of 20th century history reveals the graphic contradictions of the pacifist posture, the costs of its continued practice and its fundamental ineffectiveness in accomplishing its purported transformative mission.
Nonetheless, we are currently beset by 'nonviolent revolutionary leaders' who habitually revise historical fact as a means of offsetting their doctrine's glaring practical deficiencies and by the spectacle of expressly pacifist organizations (apparently in all seriousness) claiming to be standing 'in solidarity' with practitioners of armed resistance in Central America, Africa and elsewhere..
"the trappings of pacifism have been subverted to establish a sort of 'politics of the comfort zone' not only akin to what Bettleheim termed 'the philosophy of business as usual' [but] .. devoid of perceived risk to its advocates.."
Pacifism is not the issue. Pacifism is a philosophical approach to conflict, whereas violence or non-violence is a tactic. But in the choosing of a tactic it is important to recognize that violence is always about coercion and non-violence is inherently about persuasion. As a tactic in the politics of change, violence is not only ineffective, it is counter productive. What did fire bombing a bank branch accomplish? It is a loss of a few hundred thousand dollars to a multi-billion dollar corporation. But to those who work at the bank or depend on it for other reasons, the cost may be relatively much steeper. So who has been persuaded of what by those responsible for this attack?
Some socialist movements are designed to ensure that every intensity that comes their way is strangled of all life and meaning and rendered ineffective in the process. Graveyards of ideas for the most part.
Arriving late to the party. Again. It was a gorgeous day here in Toronto, unlike yesterday's rainy cool drizzle. I was out and about.
aka Mycroft, regarding your post at #21, quoting Buddy Kat at #15. At this time (9:14pm EST) Buddy's post at #15 no contains no link, nor the text you quoted.
Buddy Kat. For the record, the words quoted in aka Mycroft's post, as stated by you, are unacceptable on babble. Perhaps you've removed them? If so, great, and don't post overt and potentially legally-harmful-to-rabble calls to violence like that again. And the presumably deleted link to buying a crossbow is too creepy to contemplate. I would have deleted it if it was there.
In case it's not clear, Buddy, post like that again and you will be taking a short break from babble.
While I don't agree that violence is the most effective tactic for leftist activists, the state has never felt such subtleties. Reading Pacifism As Pathology by Ward Churchill was a huge "ah ha" moment for me, and continues to be a challenge, theoretically, for me. I can't speak for those in far more desperate situations than myself.
Nor can I name any revolution, or significant overthrow of oppressors that occurred historically without some sort of violence, however much it is desired to avoid it.
Yes I deleted the statements that did upset some babblers. Got carried away a bit. I just picture in my mind young kids getting their heads beaten in by P.olice I.ntergrated G.overnment S.ecurity (PIGS) and their girlfriends crying , when I think of protest rallies.
However posts reflecting the power being taken away by non-violent methods does make sense. Best not to give it to them. That is something I wrestle with also. I know they want to taunt people into breaking the law so they can do their thing.
I just can’t seem to wrap my head around the fact that one side gets to use shields, batons, tear gas, pepper spray on another group that has nothing to defend themselves from, what I know for a fact are hateful psychos that will have no problem whatsoever beating these innocent people to death. Just piss’s me off. So cruel!
Unionist made a statement referring to “my people” indicating to me he /she may be first nations. Sorry for what I said to you. I agree there is nothing that can match the cruelty and hate perforated on your people. After a visit once to the cypress hills area and a visit to the local museum had evidence of rcmp poisoning whiskey with strychnine and buffalo meat too it was a real eye opener to the kind of treatment and indignity the government of Canada is guilty of and then reading a post about how police just laughed as an Indian vomited himself to death in custody…sounded like strychnine poisoning there too. Just too much bad news this week. To think it’s 100 years later and now they are still poisoning people with oil sand developments and their toxic brews is just too much cruelty going on.
Probably just as well that I was called on my post. My next posts would have been heavy on radio jamming equipment, honey/water balloons and red fire ants, Tribulus terristis (puncture vine), deck spray paint and blow darts. In an effort to reflect the organic nature of the modern day protest.
May 21 - Statement On RBC Arson Attack: WarriorPublications.com
http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/blog/3467
"The May 18, 2010 arson attack on the Royal Bank of Canada in Ottawa was clearl an anti-colonial and anti-capitalist action..."
Thanks for your post, Buddy Kat, and no, I'm not FN.
commenting on debating "diversity of tactics", it's a good moniker & am wondering was this coined during these past Olympics? If so it could be claimed as a Canadianism!
The debates between the extremes of dedicated pacifists and militants, yes it's healthy to debate these extreme positions at length and arrive at a consensus at the end... I did notice some acceptances of the opposite points of view but they seemed a bit resigned, not robust, so the debate needs to continue to arrive at true consensus!
Even the extremists can stay true to their individual belief systems and work in perfectly concerted synergy, you have the iconic example of Ghandi who wouldn't have achieved what he became the spiritual figure head of, and as a dedicated pacifist, without the eventual mobilization of the masses ready to engage in bloodshed against Brits {& we don't know but should be open to considering that since history has this tendency to repeat, that all you Canadians may be destined to suffer the same fate, I mean you come from Britain, your system does, even if you've tried to cover this to some extent by changing your name, right?}.
Destruction of a bank with no one in it can hardly be called violent, more like destruction of property & if it was First Nations that is entirely their right to do so. It does not in any way even begin to compare with the destruction of the 3 WTC towers on 9/11/2001, which would have also been catagorizable as 'planned demolitions' had they not included pre-meditated murder and which the NYPD had foreknowledge of. So do just be keeping it all in perspective!!
Demonstrations don't work and exploring alternative methods is the way to go. That was just one example of fair play. Lets here some more concrete examples . What is the alternative to sign carrying and dealing with frontline piggies with weapons..I'm all ears. Come on lets here it......
A general strike (with workplace and community occupations) presents a situation that the police are actually afraid of attacking picket lines because they predict that they would lose any deciseive conflict with the strikers and the broad working class movement. That is real direct action and it does work, just look internationally right now, or historically back to the 1972 general strike in Quebec.
commenting on debating "diversity of tactics", it's a good moniker & am wondering was this coined during these past Olympics? If so it could be claimed as a Canadianism!
It dates back at least to the massive anti-globalization events in Québec City in the spring of 2001. That's the first time I heard it and saw it proposed, in any event.
[/quote]
The Fire This Time: Burning Bridges
Steve D’Arcy and Syrah Canyon
Across Canada, activists have been reacting to the May 18 arson attack on a bank in Ottawa by a group claiming to be politically motivated. The group – calling itself FFFC – set off a fire bomb inside a Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) branch in the Glebe residential neighbourhood near the city's downtown, and then posted a video of the attack on the internet.
Along with the video, the group issued a ‘communiqué’ in which they suggested that RBC was targeted because of its sponsorship of the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver earlier this year, on stolen Indigenous land, and the bank's role as the leading financier of the environmentally destructive Tar Sands megaproject in Alberta, which has led to elevated cancer and death rates in First Nation communities living downstream along the Athabasca River, while contributing massively to climate change.

“Respect Indigenous Rights” banner at this year's May Day rally in Toronto.
Few amongst the Left could disagree, of course, with a strong condemnation of RBC, Canada's most profitable and most notoriously immoral financial institution. RBC fully deserves to be challenged, with determination and militancy, whenever possible. However, there is debate on the action taken by the FFFC against RBC. The crux of this debate turns on questions of tactics and strategy.
Political Arson?
Many people have been sharply critical of the arsonists' use of a tactic that endangered the lives of both nearby residents and the emergency workers who had to deal with the fire (there was also the possibility of there being night workers in the bank cleaning). The actions of the arsonists were irresponsible and reckless. Anyone who has had the unfortunate experience of being in a fire, fighting a fire or treating a fire victim can tell you just how dangerous a fire can be. Fire is very powerful and unpredictable and, even if it was not the intention of the arsonists to do so, it was within the realm of possibility that people could have been seriously injured and/or killed (as occurred in the Greek anti-austerity protests when a bank was firebombed, workers killed, and a huge setback to the momentum to the protests followed). We expect such disregard for human life from the major corporations themselves, not those who oppose them. It is delusional to think that any pain brought on by this action would be borne by the system of capitalism, the state, or even the RBC. You can't burn those things down. It is business as usual for all of them. In fact, this action has served their interests.
Impact on Organizing
Beyond the condemnations of the very idea of using arson as a political tactic, there are more specific and concrete reasons to raise objections. For the past several months, two important activist campaigns in the country had been mobilizing around the upcoming G8/G20 summit in Toronto at the end of June and against RBC's role in financing Tar Sands development. In both campaigns, activists had been working tirelessly, trying to build alliances between environmentalists, trade unionists, Indigenous communities, and social justice activists of every sort. Countless hours of meetings had taken place. Countless protests at RBC branches had been held. A series of events had been organized. And all this hard work had begun to bear fruit. Several trade unions have signed on to work as allies with young activist collectives; climate justice advocates have made links with anti-poverty organizers; social justice organizations are building close alliances with student groups; all with a view to mounting a serious mobilization against the G8/G20 summit, as well as putting RBC on the defensive for its brazen greenwashing and blatant hypocrisy. But both campaigns were dealt a blow by the arson attack.
Suddenly – and without the slightest bit of input from activists working on these issues for months or years – a tiny group of individuals changed the whole dynamic of these movement-building projects. Suddenly, pressure has been taken off RBC and the Canadian state, and instead the pressure has been on activists to disassociate themselves from the FFFC attack. Suddenly, the authorities have been handed an all too convenient pretext to justify intensifying surveillance and repression directed against activists in general, and Indigenous activists in particular. Suddenly, radical activists who have been trying for months to reach out to working-class organizations to build an anti-corporate alliance against both RBC and the G8/G20 found their efforts undermined, given that most workers understandably recoil against the foolhardiness of firebombing a building in a residential neighbourhood.
Most activists have, with good reason, been outraged at this inept and self-defeating attempt at manufacturing a supposedly ‘militant’ media spectacle. Some activists, however, have been muted in their criticism. In some cases, they made a point of refusing to condemn FFFC at all. Why this hesitation? It seems clear that what is holding back some activists from speaking out against the arson tactic is that they remain committed to the doctrine of ‘diversity of tactics.’
Diversity of Tactics
Fortunately, however, the ‘diversity of tactics’ idea has lost much of the lustre it had a decade ago, as more and more activists have begun to gain practical experience of how damaging it can be to the work they do. Accordingly, some activists are not hesitating to speak out in this case, regardless of the diversity of tactics dogma. For example, arguably the most prominent centre for climate justice organizing in Canada, and the most vocal adversary of RBC's involvement in the Tar Sands, the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), has issued a clear rebuke of the Ottawa fire bombers. The IEN calls for “an effective, transparent non-violent campaign against RBC and their dirty investments” – the polar opposite of what FFFC has called for (a clandestine and ineffectual campaign of senseless arson attacks in residential neighbourhoods). “The Indigenous Environmental Network,” the statement continues, “supports strategic non-violent direct action that is led by impacted communities.” [See full statement below.]
One organization of Ottawa-area anarchists, the local branch of the group Common Cause, has also spoken out against FFFC's actions. In a statement, they contend that:
“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. Instead of isolated acts of property destruction, we need unlimited general strikes of all workers right across Canada and internationally to defeat the attacks on the working class by the capitalists.”
Increased Repression
The Ottawa arson is a huge gift of May to politicians, allowing them to rationalize turning Toronto into a militarized zone for the benefit of the G20 meetings in June. Conservative Party Federal Industry Minister Tony Clement was quick to make political capital in defence of massive security funding. “Early in the process, people were questioning why we needed so much security,” he says. “Now, no one is questioning it.” Directly following the arson attack there was a request for 500 additional police for the G20 summit (pushing the total number well over the 10,000 previously reported). The arson is paying so many dividends that it is quite plausible that the police already know who committed it, and they are waiting for even more political and tactical benefits before they make an arrest. There is no doubt that the arsonists have provided the perfect foil for the harassment and arrest of activists and the suspension of civil liberties. How this all plays out heading toward the Summit protests remains to be seen.
Who Are The FFFC?
There has been much speculation on exactly who the FFFC are. They have been described in the media as everything from café-dwelling dilettantes to domestic terrorists. A few have cast them as heroes; others have called them misguided; while many others are using much less charitable terms. Due to the damaging impact the arson has had on organizing some people have speculated that they are police agents and/or provocateurs. There is precedent to this as Canadian police have recently been proven to adopt the disguise of black bloc types in order to commit acts that discredit the Left, notably at the Montebello summit a few years ago, and there is a long public history of the role of the RCMP in domestic infiltration of political groups followed by incitement to political violence (and an even more sordid history in the USA). Such acts have, in turn, allowed for greater police suppression of social mobilizations. This possibility should not be completely discounted, but we must be careful not to veer into the realm of conspiracy theory or provide political space that might legitimate such measures. We should, moreover, not let this possibility stop us from engaging in hard debates within the left around issues of tactics and strategy.
Whoever they are, the set of politics that the FFFC espouse is part of a wider tendency in a certain type of Left-wing politics: the tendency to seek minoritarian substitutes for mass action in the face of declining levels of popular struggle. So, when the masses ‘disappoint’ there is a tendency among highly motivated – but also isolated (and sometimes immature) – activists to imagine that there might be an alternative to mass mobilization from below. The disappointed activists may dream of some heroic saviour(s): a band of guerrillas, a terrorist group, a charismatic politician, the ‘black bloc,’ or even the military might of a foreign government. Lacking hope and realism about mass movement-building, a range of panaceas to spark an uprising are conjured up. Sometimes, as apparently in the case of the so-called FFFC, the more unstable types will even try to cast themselves in the ‘saviour’ role.
Hal Draper, the American socialist, harshly described these types as “bumpkin-blowhards of the Big Bang theory of revolution who have been very successful not in tearing apart the System, but in tearing apart what there was of a radical movement that was aborning."
What Is Radicalism?
It is clear that there are some on the Left who mistake the Ottawa action for a ‘militant’ and ‘radical’ form of protest, a strategic escalation of the struggle. But this is to succumb to confusion about the true meaning of ‘radicalism.’
Radicalism, as Rosa Luxemburg pointed out more than a century ago, is not equivalent to ‘extremism’ in the choice of tactics or strategies. On the contrary, the project of anti-capitalist radicalism – precisely because it is animated by a pressing sense of urgency for victory in the struggle against big business – “must logically grope on its road of development between the following two rocks: abandoning the mass character of the party [political movement] or abandoning its final aim; falling into bourgeois reformism or into sectarianism...” (Reform or Revolution, 1900).
Everyone who understands the severe social damage and grave ecological threat to humanity posed by the agendas of corporations like RBC and the G8/G20 governments will, quite rightly, want to mount a formidable social struggle against them. A strategy of ‘politics as usual’ within actually-existing liberal democracy will rightly be rejected by them as insufficient. Activists should, and often do, demand a more radical strategy than the liberal ‘reformism’ referenced by Luxemburg. This is a strategy of social transformation that attempts to challenge not only the symptoms of social and environmental injustice, but the root cause: capitalism itself.
The impulse toward anti-capitalist radicalism will lead to the ‘rock’ of ultra-left ‘sectarianism’ unless it is integrated with a second impulse: the insistence on maintaining what Luxemburg calls the ‘mass character’ of the struggle. Pursuing this second impulse demands that often marginal and isolated anti-capitalist radicals commit themselves to doing the hard work of systematically reaching out to wider circles of the working class. It means building bridges and ‘transitional campaigns’ that link the present-day grievances and aspirations of working people with the more far-reaching agenda of fundamental social transformation that anti-capitalists already embrace.
What makes the political project of authentic anti-capitalist radicalism different from, on the one hand, the ‘liberal reformism’ of those who look to mere electoralism as the way to challenge injustice, and, on the other hand, the deluded ‘insurrectionism’ of those who look to FFFC-style tactics, is that radicals persist in pursuing a path that these other sorts of activists tend to renounce: the path of seeking radical social change by means of grassroots mass mobilization. This is a path that seeks to connect with masses of people by means of building grassroots protest movements in which people participate by taking to the streets to fight for social and environmental justice and political and economic democracy. At the same time, though, it is a path that looks beyond the narrow horizons of the ‘realistic politician,’ and sets its sights higher than the ‘reformists’ who accept the limits of capitalism. The radical path aims instead to eradicate capitalism altogether, and with it all forms of exploitation, oppression and environmental destruction.
The Ottawa firebombing fiasco illustrates how strategically important it is to develop a radicalism that succeeds in steering a course between the two dangers to which Luxemburg so vividly draws attention. Those activists who are working today for a revitalization of anti-capitalist radicalism need to distance ourselves in a clear and unhesitating way from the FFFC arson attacks. The ruling elites of our society will want to seize upon all of this to distract public attention from the real issues of social and environmental injustice. For our part, we cannot afford to be distracted from the hard work of drawing workers, students, poor and unemployed people into an alliance against the agenda of both the G8/G20 governments and corporations like RBC. One way to return the focus to this effort would be to affirm publicly our support for the Indigenous Environmental Network's call for “effective, transparent, non-violent campaigns,” including “non-violent direct action that is led by impacted communities,” both in the anti-G20 organizing and the anti-RBC organizing of the climate justice movement. •
Steve D’Arcy is an economic democracy activist and a climate justice organizer.
Syrah Canyon is an emergency worker and member of the Greater Toronto Workers’ Assembly.
FM already posted it above, aka Mycroft, but it definitely was worth re-quoting in full.
This article makes a really crucial point:
"In essence, what it means is that one sector of the activist Left, namely those who identify with the tactic of media-spectacle property-destruction, should receive a special exemption from public criticism by other activists, no matter how badly their choice of tactics undermines the organizing efforts of others on the Left. It seems clear that no radical activist would deny that when a social democratic politician, NGO activist, or union official does something foolish and short-sighted, which undermines months of movement-building work by other activists, it is perfectly legitimate for others to subject their actions to critical scrutiny, and to voice their criticisms and insist on accountability. But, in the name of ‘diversity of tactics,’ many people believe that certain kinds of self-styled ‘radicals’ should be exempted from this kind of criticism. The diversity of tactics idea is supposed to serve as a kind of “Get Out of Accountability for Free” card. Unfortunately, this doctrine of ‘anything goes’ threatens to leave the entire activist Left defenceless in the face of the irresponsible and politically disastrous tactical blunders of a handful of individuals."
So can we put an end to this strawman of 'why not spend your time denouncing the corporations, govt's etc'? The reason many activists criticize this type of action, and the "diversity of tactics" dogma that puts a chill on discussion, is that we think it harms the cause. Why not respond to our arguments, rather than name-calling or questioning our good faith? There is a lot of history we can draw on here (Weathermen, Squamish 5, etc); it would great to look at that more rather than moralizing about the practise of either violence or non-violence in our resistance.
FM already posted it above, aka Mycroft, but it definitely was worth re-quoting in full.
I agree that the Socialist Project piece is pretty solid, but I thought there was a policy against quoting entire articles. Seemed unnecessary when a link had already been provided.
I thought that policy was only for copyright reasons and didn't apply to non-copyrighted material.