On Legitimate and Illegitimate Protest

black bloc pretty tame compared to these south korean labour activists.  this is real violence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qsdvTaFskc&feature=related

In the case of Toronto, I've been thinking, if the Black Bloc didn't exist, government would have to invent them. They have been so incredibly effective at shifting the focus away from the waste, away from police state tactics, away from the growing recognition of the illegitimacy of the G20 and onto the "hey, look!" specatcle of a sideshow.

I am not one to argue that people ought not to protest, and I abhor the so-called "free speech zones" setup to deprive us of free speech, but in this case, in this one case, a entirely peaceful protest could have seriously jeopardized the Harper government as public focus demanded to know why it was necessary to waste a $1 billion on cops dressed up like Mussolini's black shirts.

Instead, all anyone talks about is the violence. What a waste. I read an excellent essay that argued the Black Bloc protects the G20. I accept that argument. It deflects scrutiny away from the real crimes being committed inside the fence.

See, I disagree with that assessment, Frustrated Mess.  Without the BB, everything would have been nicely stage managed and none of the stuff you project would happen, would have happened.   

The BB made the system do something it has no practice at, and that is thinking on it's feet.

For example,  people can still talk about the waste of a billion.  And people still are.  And people will come election time, again. 

And so much more.   

This will be seen as a watershed event.

I understand that the bourgeois capitalist state, needs to be torn down and rebuilt. At times there will be violence..

But the problem is, randum violence, plays into the hands of the ruling elite.

It scares the passive elements of the working class. It lets the ruling elite curtail civil liberties.

The working class has struggled hard for these rights. Randum violence is used by the bourgeosie, to take them away at moments notice.

thanks [Nora], saw the piece elsewhere and glad you brought it here. I too think the BB acted as catalysts and 'change agents'  provoking the police into the kinds of heavy handed gestapo tactics that all are now aware of here. That being said, I think the days that they can infiltrate somebody else's parade or protest and then start smashing shit are probably numbered. It's fundamentally wrong to expose others to police actions for something they had no part in or awareness of. Respect and consent must inform all our relations between ourselves in such situations I think.

[post edited by moderator to remove personal information]

The actions of the black bloc gave the police a pretense for making all protesters and in fact all people on the street "illegitimate". 

Some would have us thank the black bloc for helping to reveal how much trouble our democracy is in, you know all those folks at the cabin hearing about little Tommy's ordeal will suddenly wake up to the danger Canada is in.  I think that most of those people will simply be terrified and realize that the best thing they can do is hide.  I think that was the intent and if you listen to people as they were released without charges they were told that if they EVER participated in another protest they would be arrested, voila protesting is illegal.

If the black bloc is so committed to these kinds of actions why don't we hear about them at other times?  Are the only actions they involve themselves in ones in which they can hide themselves in the midst of peaceful protesters?  Where are they now?  Are they taking any responsibility for Toronto?

A good article from the Toronto Media Coop:

Quote:

The violence of this Black Bloc wasn't just directed towards property. People were attacked and endangered through their recklessness during Saturday's march. I personally was threatened and attacked by black bloc members because i had a camera. I saw black block members attack several other photographers for myself.  I also came very close to getting a rock in the head that was headed for a window. On other occasions I saw bloc members smash windows with bystanders on the other side of the windowpane. Not to mention the attacks against police that I witnessed.  Putting aside for a moment the argument that attacks against property are not violence, attacks against people certainly are violence and their reprehensible.   

Whether the police felt their crackdown was a necessity after the black bloc action or the action was the excuse the police needed to start it, the Black Bloc action by 75-100 individuals was the event that lead to 10 000 of our allies facing police violence and 900 of them being arrested. A small cadre changed the entire dynamic of the convergence and its relationship with the police. After Saturday's Bloc march, no space in Toronto was safe for dissent. Sometimes I wonder if some people who use these tactics aren't hoping for a violent response against their allies just to prove a point about the violence of the state... The Bloc's also made the actions of police acceptable in the eyes of the wider public. This Bloc's actions essentially justified the $1 billion in security costs, the fence, the secret law and the mass arrests in the public opinion.   

Respect for diversity of tactics does not excuse activists from being accountable for their actions, but that is how it is treated by members of the black bloc.  We lose credibility as a whole to our audience when property destruction and violence occur, these tactics endanger others who choose not to use them (directly and afterwords when police react to them), when these negative effects are felt, members of the Black Bloc are long gone after essentially using the rest of us as human shields... I believe to an extent that this indifference to the damage Bloc tactics do to our movement comes from vastly different priorities: confronting the state's authority vs. putting a message out to a wider audience. The members of this Bloc put their priorities ahead of the priorities of the majority of people at this convergence.

Respect for diversity of tactics is a two-way street. Members of the black bloc generally harbour a disrespect for activists who do not use such risky tactics, often viewing other more peaceful activists as less committed.

Another good article by Chris Lawson:

Quote:

I work for unions. I have for a long time. I like strikes. They’re risky. They’re a direct confrontation between authority and people and they cost the enemy (the employer) money.

So in some ways, I suppose I should understand bashing windows, cop cars and the like as part of a protest. It’s risky, involves confrontation and it costs the capitalists (the enemy) money. It makes sense, I suppose, insofaras most of the folks doing the smashing (the ones that aren’t members of the police union) don’t have a union to organize a strike for them.

Strikes, though, are legal (within the strictures of the labour code anyway).

That’s unfair to people who aren’t unionized and want to hit their oppressors where it hurts, so it’s not a compelling reason to be pro-strike but anti-property destruction.

What is compelling, though, is the fact that with strikes, there’s an exit point. And there’s something to be gained. If you play your cards right, at the bargaining table, you can actually end the strike by raising working peoples’ wages.

Not all strikes end well. Sometimes that’s not the union’s fault. Sometimes it is. But at some point, it’s over and we can see how we did. When they go well, they can bring a group of people together, and show them their power.

But this business with the burning the cop cars and smashing the windows during the G20 protest in Toronto – how did the bashers think that was supposed to end? And what exactly was the purpose? Moreover what has it cost us?

...

Also, the further marginalization of progressive ideas and alienation of social change movements. Mass demonstrations now mean kettling, mass arrest and 36 hours handcuffed in a cage. Who is going to want to be part of that? If I can’t bring my four year old, I don’t want to be part of that revolution, dudes.

Peaceful activism had its time in the sun, but has failed miserably as a force for change against an unmoveable enemy bereft of conscience or decency. The repetitive counsel for more of the same is an echo which originates from countless defeats.

Slumberjack wrote:

Peaceful activism had its time in the sun, but has failed miserably as a force for change against an unmoveable enemy bereft of conscience or decency. The repetitive counsel for more of the same is an echo which originates from countless defeats.

Marginal black blocs were around long before the Seattle protests - I remember them well at the ARMX protest in Ottawa in the late 80s. Their time under the sun - the last 25 years or so - has marked the most profoundly unproductive time the left has ever witnessed, and the most triumphant period the right has ever experienced. So I completely and utterly reject your assertion.

We are not talking here about Sandinistas or other armed revolutionary groups who set out to achieve their goals with broad support from their community. We are talking about some children who like to break some windows and liken this to being heirs to the tradition of armed struggle, which is utter rubbish. Drawing any such parallel is an outrageous insult to all those who have fought and died for justice.

Thank you so much, [Nora].  I have been trying to find the words to exlain why I support the Black Bloc protestors even though I don't personally destroy things.  You have explained it so well and I agree with everything you wrote here.  I was in full support of the BB until I read that they also destroyed store windows of small businesses run by immigrants and that really bothered me.  However, I believe most of them probably would not condone that and I still believe in their cause.  I think in a world such as this one where there is no possible way to break free of capitalist oppression or even get the State to listen to the people's concerns, there can be no "right" or "wrong" way to protest.  When there is no right answer, no one's answer can really be "better" than anyone else's.

[post edited by moderator to remove potentially identifiable personal information]

Bushfire wrote:

I was in full support of the BB until I read that they also destroyed store windows of small businesses run by immigrants and that really bothered me.

It didn't bother you when they started assaulting other protestors and journalists?

Chronicles of Rebick: The Real G20 Conspiracy..

http://mostlywater.org/chronicles_rebick_real_g20_police_conspiracy_divi...

"Since my last article debunking long-time Toronto activist Judy Rebick's publicly promoted conspiracy theory that the Toronto police allowed the black bloc to run amok to justify the billion dollar G20 security budget, new information has come to my attention..."

Polunatic2, where in downtown were the 19,000 officers while those 2 thugs shown in your article were carrying that 10 ft weapon and destroying store fronts with it in plain view?  I live downtown and I have never before seen Yonge street completely empty of police.

Sure I recognize them, SJ. That's the "talking point" for brave civilians and soldiers who have fought and died for justice against nazism, fascism, imperialism, colonialism, and apartheid throughout the decades - the "talking point" which has been appropriated by those very enemies in (for example) the "Support the Troops" call over Afghanistan.

The talking point is perfectly fine and noble. The outrageous insult is applying it, without distinction, to the Canadian military of WWII and the Canadian military of Kandahar. To the national liberation forces of Viet Nam and the SUV boys of Ottawa. To the warriors of Oka and the window smashers of Toronto.

"It didn't bother you when they started assaulting other protestors and journalists?"

I didn't hear much about assaults to people. I was under the impression that they did not harm

anybody, but now I am starting to find out otherwise. Of course I do not support harming people.

The black bloc causes police brutality.  They are the chicken not the egg.  So what was the excuse for the police violence prior to the black blocs emergence? 

I understand the debate going on within the other side.  It and the debate going on here is going to give some police security official the moral certainty to order the shooting of people in our streets for breaking windows.  Most people here will agree they deserved everything they got for ruining our great movement. The Union movement can't even rally behind the workers in Sudbury trying to hang on to the pensions and benefits that were won in the early 1960's.  So we tell the truly marginalized young people who will never get anywhere near a Defined Benefit Pension that they should be nice and respectful to the police and their masters. Peaceful demonstrations have never worked wonders to get social change.

I hope that when the fascists round up the black bloc they don't inadvertently sweep up any of you nice protesters because it would obviously not be the fascists fault but the black blocs and then we will have to have ten more threads decrying the black bloc for the police actions.

cruisin_turtle wrote:

Polunatic2, where in downtown were the 19,000 officers while those 2 thugs shown in your article were carrying that 10 ft weapon and destroying store fronts with it in plain view?  I live downtown and I have never before seen Yonge street completely empty of police.

I have no idea where the cops were. Why they held back remains one of the $64,000 questions? The police and government must be held to account for their actions - even moreso for their illegal detentions, assaults and other violations of civil rights.  But that accountability also applies to "the movement". People need to take responsibility for their actions. They need to think through and mitigate any unintended consequences of their tactics, particularly where bystanders may be impacted - whether those bystanders are working people or shoppers on the other side of the shattering glass or protesters assembled in a so-called "green" zone. Re-writing history after the fact is a recipe to ensure that nothing is learned. (e.g. - the march/rally & BB action were completely separate OR no one was hurt therefore the action was non-violent.)  

With that in mind, the BB tactics were an abject failure. A waffle shop is not a bank. A doctor's office is not an oil company. A gift shop is not the government. At least one person was (allegedly) unintentionally assaulted by a stick. Others were terrified and forced to find a safe place to hide in their own workplaces. Yet others were pushed around and verbally assaulted on the street for taking photos. What was the point again? 

Polunatic2 wrote:

the BB tactics were an abject failure.

If some of the BB were imbeded police informants then their tactic was a resounding success.  Harper now has his excuse to continue transforming Canada into a police state.  The social activists movement has been marred as a violent destructive movement.  And the police departments now seem justified in getting the hundreds of millions for these 3 days.

So given that in the post-Seattle world, no one set of tactics - separate or combined - have been able to stave off the deepening economic and political crisis, perhaps we need to start thinking outside the box? There are victories (and they should be widely publicized and celebrated) but there are many more defeats as our adversaries have the means to fight us on a thousand fronts at the same time. They have a long term plan and if it takes an extra 5, 10 or even 20 years to get to where they're going, they've got the patience and resources to pull it off. 

Ideology is bullshit and the stated aim of the NeoCons (and unstated aim of the NeoLiberals) has been to fuck with reality based thinking as much as possible. The black block kiddies are ideologues, they're tv babies that are desperately playing at being authentic in the hopes that it makes them feel alive. They like destruction - fire, breaking glass, blood, etc - because it makes them feel real for an instant (it's fight club baby). They're stuck in a narcissistic loop they can't see beyond, they adopt an AnarchistTM identity to try to feel real and authentic (fake it until you make it!) and as a release for their resentment about the world not telling them they're more special than everyone else. They could just be authentic, of course, but that would mean they'd have to face their own hollowness and being "normal" or "average" like the rest of us they despise and consider themselves superior to (they consider themselves more empathetic even though they have no empathy and, like anyone wiht a narcissistic personality disorder that sees others as objects to be used for selfish ends, simply appropriate the suffering of others to hide the fact that all they have to offer is suburban angst and rage against their parents, who they equate with the state).

I must say, my favorite bit of AnarchyTM retardedness has been the merging of AnarchyTM with new age rubbish (keep up that unreality based thinking!) and the North American Earth First Liberation Front Press Office (don't forget to send them info about any of your direct actions to publicize!...wacky that it was set up right after the US declared environmentalists to be domestic terrorists). Pretty wacky that all these so called "anarchists" are such ideologues! Talk about an anarchy FAIL. Not to mention a reality FAIL.

@Polunatic2, the basic right of the people is to be able to express their opinions of things they like and don't like.  Rallies are one way of doing that, especially if the people don't have a media outlet to carry their view because all the mass media has been bought by large corporations who only present their point of view.

The Black Bloc tactics using violence to crash rallies by labour movements and the like is denying the people this option.  As seen in 2007, the police sometimes use Black Bloc tactics to crash such rallies and march organizers have to be aware of that and stop it.  Otherwise, we have lost our ability to express ourselves through rallies and peaceful demonstrations.  And I imagine that's not an outcome that you want.

@c_t

You make some valid points about protest rallies/marches. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the police were responsible for the BB tactics. 

The ineffectiveness of one form of tactics doesn't necessarily make another form effective in and of itself. Any tactic should be empowering for those participating. I share the frustration with the way some rallies are organized. How do we make them more empowering and effective? 

Polunatic2 wrote:

@c_t

You make some valid points about protest rallies/marches. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the police were responsible for the BB tactics. 

The ineffectiveness of one form of tactics doesn't necessarily make another form effective in and of itself. Any tactic should be empowering for those participating. I share the frustration with the way some rallies are organized. How do we make them more empowering and effective? 

When you get the answer to that you will have your revolution.  

I think if we are going to have a debate about tactics we should look to see what has been tried and what the outcome was. So far i have been involved in many peaceful union lead marches and protests against cut backs and more cut backs and you know the cutbacks just keep on coming. Does any one really think that a large peaceful protest will change anything in Canadian politics?  

For those of you who want to right me of as a defeatist I say since I have actually gone to marches and rallies for decades I have earned the right to say they don't work.  But I will still go because I at least get to say I stood up for my beliefs because the beliefs themselves are worth fighting for.

When over 50,000 people protested (peacefully with no black bloc presence) on the lawns in front of the BC legislature one of the Cabinet Ministers looked out at the citizens and in front of reporters dismissed the tens of thousands as Union Thugs. That was almost ten years ago and he is still one of the main players in cabinet.

I don't think any number of protesters will change any policy of Harper's or any of the provincial governments. Been there done that and was ignored.  Oh and by the way the only way that it appears the BC Liberals are in danger is from a populist anti-tax revolt not the progressive movements protests or the BC Feds fight back campaigns. 

Freedom 55 wrote:

That's quite the straw man, there. Yes, the failures of the Left in recent decades can be blamed on the 'marginal' tactics of black blocs.[/sarcasm]

The straw man is yours, not mine. Where did I say that the cause of the Left's failures in recent decades was the BBs? Simple, I didn't. I was responding to someone who insisted that BB tactics were the way to success, and noted that the era of the BB has actually been profoundly unsuccesful. I didn't say it was caused by the BB - merely that BBs obviously did nothing at all to enhance success.

Quote:

let's be sure to also purge ourselves of the rallies, marches, vigils, petitions, letters, postcards, and electoral campaigns which have surely been even more ubiquitous during that period, and which have also failed to deliver on their promise of a better world.

Give up everything those things have achieved in the past century, and tell me that they haven't made the world better. No health care, no universal sufferage, etc. I wouldn't say they are sufficient, but they are quite obviously necessary to change. The BB clearly isn't.

My experience with anarchists is quite different than my experience with the AnarchistsTM I've met. The anarchists I've known over the years, and worked alongside many times, are nothing like the AnarchistsTM you see playing riot kiddie. Why? Because they engage in constructive action, even when engaged in protest. They never were deluded enough to make grandiose claims to be equivalent to indigenous freedom movements (or other self serving claims that appropriate the suffering of others). Sure there were always some street kids with drug and abuse issues (and lots of resentment against the cops) hanging around but they're not anarchists (writing CRASS on the back of your jacket doesn't make you an anarchist, it makes you a rather pathetic imitation of a punk rocker from before you were born, talk about nostalgia and lack of originality or authenticity!) In Quebec City NOT one local anarchist, those involved with community building and organizing stuff, knew the riot kiddies.

The main point really is that in my experience with  anarchists (which goes back to the 70s, yes anarchy is older than the G8/20 8sigh*), an authentic anarchist is flexible, adaptable and can deal with things in a context specific (and reality-based) way. There is no ideology to defend, there's merely doing the appropriate thing to get the best results. The AnarchistsTM are all about dogma - they're rigid and uncreative, so much so that they're easily manipulated and made into a tool of the state. They're merely providing a wrench to tighten "security" and being used as patsies to alienate the general public from their own best interest. They're tv babies, wired for sensationalism. They only really feel alive when they're engaged in sensationalistic activities and hopped up on adrenalin - just like the cops they mirror so perfectly with their black uniforms and anonymity, hatred for witnessing media and disdain the common man, and their total conviction that they're right and they are enttiled to use any means necessary to serve their personal ends (dressed up grandiosely as ideology, of course, just like the people they hate and equally dehumanize to justify their actions). AnarchistsTM HELP create the fear that police and politicians use to get more power...but, hey, it's all about releasing one's personal pent up frustration and not really about change anyway. I used to stand up for anarchists - even though I'm not into "isms" myself - but the riot kiddies/tourists and AnarchistsTM are more hockey fans really than they are revolutionaries of any kind. They're reactionaries - all they do is react. Direct Reaction isn't direct action.