A Debate on Protest Tactics. What works, what doesn't

Unionist wrote:

Other than a couple of individuals on this board, it is virtually impossible to find anyone - in the street, in the workplace, on progressive websites - saying anything positive (or even "neutral") about the vandals and assholes whose actions were conveniently used as a pretext by the authorities for their fascist attacks.

Bullshit. At the rally last night, one of the speakers said something about not letting the media trick us into to talking about "good protesters vs. bad protesters". 2500 people clapped and cheered. People who are actually here and actually give a shit get it. Why the fuck don't you. Let's please focus all energy on holding the police accountable. I'm so sick of this shit.

Recall how Morgentaler fought for women's right to choose: by opening illegal abortion clinics.  For me, that's real diversity of tactics.  When the anti-choicers blew up the abortion clinic on Harbord St in Toronto, they lost the argument and established themselves in the firmament of the lunatic fringe.  

Smashing storefronts and tossing feces inside only convinces people you're full of shit, and blaming the media is what politicians do when they get on the wrong side of public opinion.

People going to work, seeing the smashed storefronts, will think, "Imagine how much damage there would have been if the police hadn't arrested 900 folks."  It's that much harder holding the police accountable.

Slumberjack wrote:

Yeah, the divide and conquer stratagem that you employ by using terms such as ‘assholes' and ‘vandals' is wearing a little thin Unionist.

I think that's an appropriate metaphor, SJ. The millions who are gathering strength to change this unjust world must divide off the adventurists and the provocateurs in order to conquer the real enemy.

Your disagreement with the "tactic" of mass demonstrations appears somewhat ahistorical to me. Not one momentous change - from the French Revolution to the defeat of U.S. aggression in South-East Asia to the overthrow of the Soviet-bloc regimes - has ever taken place in the absence of such mobilizations.

Conversely, never once have assholes and vandals triggered any positive social change. We dumb working people don't need cowardly arsonists and window-smashers and (ultimately) assassins to "wake us up". We know whose interests they serve. The only sad part about the assholes is that some of them don't even collect a cheque from those whose interests they serve.

Unionist wrote:

Conversely, never once have assholes and vandals triggered any positive social change.

Well I don't know about that. I think if you were to ask among people who marched with the peaceful side of civil rights movement; you might be surprised to find a few who would give a nod to the Black Panther tactics as being useful to the overall endeavor.

The concept I've been trying to get across to you without much success it seems, involves an exercise in self-awareness to some extent, one which realizes that it isn't necessary to do the work of the power elite apparatus by seamlessly aligning with it in condemning measures that others feel is justified, last resort self defense.

The conditioning required to engage in collaboration without the slightest acknowledgement of what it is, forms part of the relentless multi-faceted campaign of control which is employed so effectively, involving direct police action, propaganda, beatings, arrests, planetary destruction, genocide, apathy, and last but certainly not least, pacifism in the face of it all to name a few. It's a comfortable arrangement of interests to be sure.

Slumberjack wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Conversely, never once have assholes and vandals triggered any positive social change.

Well I don't know about that. I think if you were to ask among people who marched with the peaceful side of civil rights movement; you might be surprised to find a few who would give a nod to the Black Panther tactics as being useful to the overall endeavor.

The Panthers were "useful" for far more than their tactics. They were a proud, public, militant, and mass-embedded movement, organizing self-defence of African American communities against the racist suppression by the police. They were no cowardly concealed vandals or assassins. They were, in fact, notoriously the targeted victims of such attacks by police.

Your example is an excellent one to distinguish mass struggle from police provocateurs and individual heroic adventurers. You have quite obviously missed my argument. I am no pacifist, nor do I espouse nonviolence except as a tactic (and maybe as a lofty distant goal in human evolution). When militant action is taken, it must be taken by masses of people, deciding and acting together. If individuals do so on their own, the same masses of people must [i]suppress[/i] them - or, if that's not feasible, then clearly condemn and dissociate from them.

Sineed wrote:

 As I said before this past wkend, activists will lose the moral high ground if they support violent tactics.  What happened is exactly what us pacifists said was going to happen.

Here's another metaphor...army background and all you know.  When the battle is in the trenches, to insist on occupying the moral high ground leaves one standing around in no persons land, trying to advance against hopeless odds.

Now I understand Vimy Ridge.

theboxman wrote:

Whether it would be an effective or productive tactic though is a wholly different question. 

It might work the first time around, if each protester had a rifle and bandolier slung across their shoulder, in convincing the police to adopt a more polite demeanor with the general public. The next time though, the army would be manning the barricades.

It wouldn't happen here of course, because we tend to leave that sort of thing to the 'third' world. We're quite willing to cheer them on in their struggles though, while simultaneously counseling the less intense, apparently more civilized bended knee approach for ourselves.

Slumberjack wrote:

It might work the first time around, if each protester had a rifle and bandolier slung across their shoulder, in convincing the police to adopt a more polite demeanor with the general public. The next time though, the army would be manning the barricades.

The image in my head was more construction hard hats and steel trash bin shields. Nonetheless, you're probably right about what the likely state response would be. 

There's a scene in one of Ogawa Shinsuke's documentary series about the farmers' protests against the building of Narita International Airport outside of Tokyo from the 1970s when the farmers and their student allies debate whether to arm themselves for the next days picket lines. It's certainly an interesting glimpse into the thinking that went behind their protest actions at the time. 

Hi babblers, although u may not know me- i feel like i kno most of you (in that anonymous online way anyways) i have read the forums the last 3 years- but after what happened in the tdot this weekend and closely following the board i feel i need to post in response to a long-time babbler.

Unionist- there are actually a lot of people in support of the activists in black: several in the mainstream. Naomi Klein was on democracynow.org yesterday defending their actions, and providing a context in which this sort of actvism exists.

as many of u may or may not kno (as i did not)canada has had (roll eyes) substantial hockey riots in the past where more cop cars were destroyed/burnt/flipped.

I personally feel ill that the left would not be in solidarity with ALL of the protesters not just those working within the social justice mainstream.  My sympathies are anarchist(indigenist/post left/ communist), and i have difficulty with a parliamentary system led by social democrats; however when social democrats, socialists, communists, marxists, social justice people speak and march i tend to listen and realise how rich and diverse the left is- rather be divisive in the face of mainstream media.

If we dont have solidarity for eachother- how can we expect to change the public perception?

Just as an Add- i have also heard many people discuss how the police implemented their "baiting" tactics- so to blame the activists  for causing destruction on police "property" when it is clear to anyone paying attention that this was clearly what "they" wanted... The left to divide and the "black bloc' to become the new terrorists...

Hi, st_zed - warm welcome to babble (that is, to a speaking role)! If you've been reading for 3 years, you may have noticed that I occasionally exaggerate in order to make my point. It's my working-class upbringing, I'm afraid...

st_zed wrote:

Unionist- there are actually a lot of people in support of the activists in black: several in the mainstream.

I'm a big believer in precision. I have absolutely nothing against anarchists nor against people who dress in black. My comments are directed against the assholes that torch banks and cop cars and smash windows of businesses, then run away and hide. Are those the ones you say "a lot of people" support? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I haven't met one single solitary non-cyber-person that has said, "Good for them!"

Quote:

Naomi Klein was on democracynow.org yesterday defending their actions, and providing a context in which this sort of actvism exists.

Not that I don't believe you, but having just met you, I'll need a quote and/or a link so that I can judge your rather astonishing statement for myself.

Quote:

as many of u may or may not kno (as i did not)canada has had (roll eyes) substantial hockey riots in the past where more cop cars were destroyed/burnt/flipped.

Yeah, and I have more respect for crowds that do that than masked heroes. Not much more, mind you - but more. The crowds usually aren't trying to invite repression.

Quote:

I personally feel ill that the left would not be in solidarity with ALL of the protesters not just those working within the social justice mainstream.

What if some of the "protesters" pulled out guns and started shooting cops? Would the absence of solidarity still make you ill? Or do you get to draw the line as to what forms of individual heroics are acceptable? Just askin'.

Quote:

My sympathies are anarchist(indigenist/post left/ communist), and i have difficulty with a parliamentary system led by social democrats; however when social democrats, socialists, communists, marxists, social justice people speak and march i tend to listen and realise how rich and diverse the left is- rather be divisive in the face of mainstream media.

I personally never give a damn what someone's "sympathies" are. I judge them by their words and deeds, and whether they act with the movement or not. If you think the "movement" only consists of "the left", then we will never win. We will need people marching and acting together who would never dream of attaching all those little sectarian labels to themselves that you have just listed. Come check out my fellow workers sometime. When action happens, they're all together. Ask them how they vote or what they thing of socialism and revolution and anarchism. You will be rudely surprised.

I'll take my "right-wing" workers over the asshole arsonists any day of the week, month, or year - because they will change this world.

Unionist wrote:

But [b]today[/b], I disagree even more immediately and urgently with Slumberjack. The individual arsonists and vandals must be condemned - suppressed - as a small parenthesis to our larger struggle. And we must be the ones to do it, if they don't get the message themselves through their rather dense skulls.

We're of the opinion that we have time on our side, and that our immediate circumstances [I mean ‘our' in the sense that we enjoy, no matter what occurs around us, a measure of safety and security that is denied to others on a daily basis] are such as to not warrant a more aggressive posture.

We consider ourselves in solidarity with the oppressed around the world and domestically, yet we define the respective variations of self defense through our own methodology. What is well and good enough for ‘others' as they determine is to be avoided by us.

Solidarity exists so long as the complacency and normalcy that we've come to depend upon for ourselves remains undisturbed. Somehow, everyone must sign on to what we define as legitimate in order to be considered, even in circumstances of knowing full well the level of mainstream conditioning that exists in this society, to an extend where we witness the occasional outburst in protest, followed by an equally rapid return to the accustomed state of lethargy that has been prepared for us. And if somehow the oppressed gain a measure of victory through the very means we look down upon, we stand ready to reap the benefit after stepping past their bodies.

We do not fully realize of course the similarities that should unite us all against a common global system that inflicts its misery everywhere, because after all, we're among the privileged few, which lends toward the notion of feeling that we have the time to be patient, while others are being crushed, poisoned, and suffocated.

I believe violence begets violence. Violent tactics by the BB goons will just bring more police repression.

Unionist wrote:

Cytizen H wrote:

At the rally last night, one of the speakers said something about not letting the media trick us into to talking about "good protesters vs. bad protesters". 2500 people clapped and cheered.

I have no intention of letting this go until you either substantiate it - or withdraw it. [b]Who said this[/b], and what did they say? Why should we allow throwaway comments like yours to become urban legend?

FUCK YOU UNIONIST YOU FUCK!!!! WHy don't you spend 20 hours in a fucking cage, get beat up by cops and listen to the media and supposed fucking allies trash your friends and family and then go fucking search out the name of someone who spoke in front of 2500 people. Fuck you. Look at the speakers list. it was one of those people.

The BB goons are nothing but a sideshow, but unfortunately a sideshow that brings increased police repression.

No wonder the level of anxiety being expressed though, there you go again with inconvenient facts and footage.

Here's one heck of a tactic worth debating: [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/police-admit-delibe... admit deliberately misleading public on expanded security fence law[/url]

Boom Boom wrote:

The BB goons are nothing but a sideshow, but unfortunately a sideshow that brings increased police repression.

I agree it was a spectacle and perhaps calculatedly so.

writer wrote:

Here's one heck of a tactic worth debating: [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/police-admit-delibe... admit deliberately misleading public on expanded security fence law[/url]

Here's what I posted on [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/activism/police-get-new-powers-g20-fence-unquest..., although I didn't get a very sympathetic reception:

Quote:

Um, folks, this is much ado about nothing. As the cops said, this law already existed - in fact, cops have had these powers for 20 years, at least, for anyone "entering or attempting to enter" "any provincial and any municipal public building"! All they did now was expand these powers to the G20 security fence.

There are no new powers - only the addition of that area.

The law is extremely draconian - reverse onus, the whole nine yards - but it's already there. Come to think of it, who was in power in Ontario in 1990?

So, who "leaked" this big story and created a big ruckus? IMHO, it's the security forces themselves. On one hand, they can help stoke their crisis atmosphere. On the other hand, they can plead that they have done nothing which isn't already in the legislation.

[b][i]And most importantly, they must be counting on the mere announcement (and the predictable reaction of some) to keep fence-sitters (sorry) away from the fence.[/i][/b]

[url=http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p55_e...'s the 1990 Act[/url], for your reference.

Emphasis added.

Slumberjack wrote:

We're of the opinion that we have time on our side, and that our immediate circumstances [I mean ‘our' in the sense that we enjoy, no matter what occurs around us, a measure of safety and security that is denied to others on a daily basis] are such as to not warrant a more aggressive posture.

Slumberjack, I won't put words in anyone else's mouth, but I don't think that's what people who argue in favour of organizing and solidarity believe about our current circumstances.

You can believe, as I do, that things here and now are really pretty awful for a lot of people and getting worse, and further that whatever comforts we have are bought at the expense of more seriously oppressed peoples elsewhere, and still recognize that some actions here and now have not been earned and are going to be counterproductive.

One way of knowing the tide had turned would be to see a million, two million Torontonians spontaneously assembled in Nathan Phillips Square -- but you and I both know that that is not going to happen soon, eh?

If Unionist is saying that we don't have a movement strong enough yet to pretend that we are starting a revolution, then I agree with him, and that's not because I'm flattering myself that we have time on our side. (I sure don't have time on my side.) Or that our comforts are too valuable to mess up if it were really possible to bring about fundamental change. It just means that I learned years ago that "Revolution if you want it!" doesn't work, isn't the way revolutions work, and is often more an expression of frustrated ego than serious commitment to change for everyone.

If the trade union movement had been willing to use its collective power anytime in the last fifteen years Canada would not be on the precipice of a police state.  Instead the mantra has been the same in every attempt at building grass roots unity.  The Union leadership rightly insists it only has a mandate from the people who pay union dues to protect their own contracts. That is the priority not social change and I have heard that from the mouths of the BC Fed Pres and various leaders of the largest unions in this province. 

Unionist your fucking train left the station in BC in the 1980's when the CLC and BC Fed sold out the Solidarity Coalition.  In BC while Campbell has been in full attack mode against the poor in this province for almost a decade the trade unions say just wait the government will defeat itself.  At the same time they insist that their members can't take on the fight shoulder to shoulder with other trade unionists becasue that would be a misuse of members funds.  HEU goes to the wall and they find themselves alone and they got beat up.  The Ferryworkers went to the wall against cutbacks to their agreements and the trade union leadership sold them down the river to a Ready made yellow dog contract.  

When unions don't even stand with other trade unionist under attack what doe that mean?  In Canada our unions have taken the old slogan "An Injury to One is An Injury to All" and changed it to read "An Injury to One is a Lesson to Be Learned From - Keep Your Head Down and Your Ass up"

Our once proud unions have abandoned our youth in favour of protecting the boomers pensions and benefits.  But go ahead tell those youth in the street that the unions make them strong.  There is business unionism in Canada not trade unionism and the union leadership is used to telling working people what is good for them. It seems that what is good for others is protecting the gains of the few from the global fire storm our cooperate leaders have unleashed on the population.  

Go ahead tell those young people that the unions are their salvation and that you only have the moral authority to decide how the power of the state should be confronted.  After all look at all the success in the last 15 years by unions in this country. 

Freedom 55, spare me the arrogance. If you disagree, fine, but spare me the cute little rant about my presumed privilege. You know dick about me, so quit commenting on me. " And I have to tell you, this whole unmasking idea reeks of privilege. You can make all the assumptions you want about why someone would choose to mask up, and your assumptions may even be correct most of the time. But the fact is, you don't know why that person wants to conceal her/his identity. You don't need to wear a mask because you have nothing to hide? Well, bully for you! You can take your privilege and shove it!"

I have met enough extremely marginalised people, unmasked, in deeply dangerous situation, that I have come to believe there is absolutely zero moral or practical justification for covering your face in the midst of a peaceful protest. None. Zip. I have marched at numerous Canadian protests with people from the global South, people who receive death threats as part of their day to day work. They look around at what our protests have become, point to the people with the masks, and say "why are they doing that? What are they trying to achieve?" If you don't want to listen to me, try listening to people who are well and truly marginalised, to the point of death threats, rape, and more, and hear what they have to say.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Instead the mantra has been the same in every attempt at building grass roots unity. 

This is the same type of mantra which for decades has been channeling leftist activism as we've come to know it into the dead end zones, where a few crumbs from the establishment is enough to be heralded as an occasion to whitewash slightly adjusted deck chairs. I mean, just take a good look in this and the firebombing threads to see the affliction and resignation. Apparently nothing is supposed to move until the green light committee makes up its mind at its leisure.

No matter though, once the misplaced responsibility is understood as a futile assumption involving a critique of this society, with the view of tweaking a few of its malfunctioning elements, in order to rescue what should be left for dead before we are as a species.

Any reason you can't control your anger, Cytizen H? Some people on this board seem to have a steaming hissy fit and go on a personal rant as soon as someone dares disagree with them. And we wonder why we can't get anywhere.

Yes, darling, I did read the posts. And I am disagreeing. Shocking! You and I seem to know different individuals who have "illegal" status or are otherwise marginalised or at-risk, and those individuals are coming to opposite conclusions. I am expressing my view and you are expressing yours. End of story.