What if the black bloc have the right idea?

Slumberjack wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 Sure, Churchill uses a number of other inaccurate and insulting arguments,

I've read his book...thanks to Maysie for loaning it out.

Churchill's book is posted, and is well worth reading for those that haven't. Especially since it will most certainly come down to a contest of force in the end, unless we continue on the path we're on which is to suck up whatever the PTB decide to impose and continue to believe nonsense and fairy-tales about 'opposition'...

Pacifism as Pathology  -  by Ward Churchill

http://zinelibrary.info/files/pap_imposed.pdf

ps whatever form the resistance ultimately takes, organization will still be a necessary prerequisite...

This is very good paragraph summation of what I believe about this issue. 

Churchill wrote:

I don’t deny the obviously admirable emotional content of the pacifist perspective. Surely we can all agree that the world should become a place of cooperation, peace, and harmony. Indeed, it would be nice if everything would just get better while nobody got hurt, including the oppressor who (temporarily and misguidedly) makes everything bad. Emotional niceties, however, do not render a viable politics. As with most delusions designed to avoid rather than confront unpleasant truths (Lenin’s premise that the sort of state he created would wither away under “correct conditions” comes to mind),[2] the pacifist fantasy is inevitably doomed to failure by circumstance.

Slumberjack wrote:

On the other hand, I'm not exactly sure how you can fail to detect a quixotic sort of arrogance that says peace is the best way to proceed against a war machine, until we say otherwise.  Regarding the Trek and the General Strike, the state tends to view disobedience itself as a violent provocation.

That's nice. So non-violence is rrelevant because the state says it actually violence. Good to know who controls the debate here.

I wonder how things might have turned out if some protests and standoffs - Oka is one which springs to mind, as well as those I mentioned above - were offensive rather than defensive. I doubt we would have seen the same outcome.

By contrast, I wonder if the police who cracked down on a peaceful demonstration in Winnipeg in 1919 weren't just a little antsy because of the mailbombings which had taken place in the states just weeks before, and which accomplished absolutely nothing other than giving the authorities an excuse for more suppression and demonizing.

And since you use the term, I can think of nothing more quixotic than smashing a store window, knowing it is going to be there again the next day. But hey, if this esoteric quote on wikipedia is to be believed, it's not really an act of force designed to effect physical change at all; it's breaking the psychic glass that is important:

When we smash a window, we aim to destroy the thin veneer of legitimacy that surrounds private property rights … After N30 [November 30], many people will never see a shop window or a hammer the same way again. The potential uses of an entire cityscape have increased a thousand-fold. The number of broken windows pales in comparison to the number of spells—spells cast by a corporate hegemony to lull us into forgetfulness of all the violence committed in the name of private property rights and of all the potential of a society without them. Broken windows can be boarded and eventually replaced, but the shattering of assumptions will hopefully persist for some time to come.

ACME Collective, quoted in Paris (2003)[22]

Again... it seems k was on the right track about this being all about magical thinking.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

This is not the 1960's the APEC summit was the start of the normalization of brutal police assaults on peaceful protestors. 

Say what? What history book did you pull THAT out of?

Not only have police, the military and right wing mobs been using violence forever,  political groups were thinking and acting internationally 100 and even 200 years ago.

There is nothing new or even remotely revolutionary about this - not even the staged hooliganism, however they want to dress it up.

contrarianna wrote:

Though Hedges graduated from Harvard divinity school, he is decidely not a "Theologian".

I don't know.  This sounds awfully similar to how modern theology holds forth these days.

Slumberjack wrote:

contrarianna wrote:

Though Hedges graduated from Harvard divinity school, he is decidely not a "Theologian".

I don't know.  This sounds awfully similar to how modern theology holds forth these days.

Hedges, having studied religion and being willing and actually capable of discussing it,  could, in the broadest sense, be called a "theologian".
But not  by your narrow understanding as a term of opprobrium necessarily entailing subservience to some religious "authority".

The essay cited is on the dimensions of "love" for which he appropriately cites  religious and several atheistical writers on the subject (including atheists Viktor Frankl, Sigmund Freud and Vasily Grossman). One does not have to agree with his essay but their is no reason to claim there is any dominant religious transcendentalism counter to the obvious and typical humanist content.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sounds a lot like turn the other cheek to me. So go ahead hug a riot cop at your next demonstration I am sure it will be uplifting.

I'm not sure those lines of distinction are so clear, k.

Probably the most serious protest action in the U. S. during the Vietnam war was made by one of those turn the other cheek types, and a religious one at that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Morrison

And there are enough times when the humanity of those who are enemies is very significant:

http://demosthenes.blogspot.ca/2011/02/egyptian-army-refused-orders-to-f...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battleship_Potemkin

Is is an insult to call Mulcair a lawyer? How about calling Harper an economist?  Both of those are insults in many quarters including many who post here.

Norman's sacrifice was the height of ineffectiveness.  The Vietcong beat the imperial war machine not pacifists dousing themselves in gasoline.  The early Xian's did the same thing to get the Roman imperial state to stop persecuting them. They succeeded and it became the state religion and thus began a couple of millennium of killing in the name of Christ. Seems their lion assisted suicides did nothing to really change the true nature of the imperial state but merely gave it a new propaganda regime to justify its greed driven violence.

My favourite MP's have mostly been Xian activists and pacifists so its not like I don't have time for that perspective. I just am tired of the self righteous on this board telling others how they should react in the face of police brutality.  I for one only really believe in using violence to defend oneself but frankly breaking windows is just another ineffective method of bringing about change just like passively asking for more and letting the cops tear gas, pepper spray and truncheon oneself.  IMO neither works and neither is morally superior no matter how good it feels to vilify others in the face of our own impotence.

@ k #115

No, of course Norman Morrison didn't stop the war, but he did demonstrate that those religious turn the other cheek types can also make a symbolic act of protest - one that is  powerful in its own right, and that isn't forgotten after they replace the glass on the Nike store. And the VietCong were the first to recognize the importance of his protest.

And what does ritual destruction of property have to do with police brutality? Who said anything about "passively asking for more"? We're talking about offensive violent action being the only way to effect change.

contrarianna wrote:

Hedges, having studied religion and being willing and actually capable of discussing it,  could, in the broadest sense, be called a "theologian".  But not  by your narrow understanding as a term of opprobrium necessarily entailing subservience to some religious "authority".

It's not the first time he's referenced spirituality in his writing.  I'm not really an anti-Hedgiantologist or anything.  Much of his writing constitutes an accurate description of the times, but I don't necessarily agree with everything.  The only further thing I'll add is that recognition of an ultimate authority is subservience by definition and practice.  It's fine to be in the service of something, but not so much if its involuntary, or else.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

That in fact no, it is not very effective at all, and that far more progressive change has been accomplished through peaceful means? 

How about a few examples?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Suffrage, marriage equality, abortion choice, probably the majority of our legal protections, for starters. 

The movement toward suffrage was a long, drawn out struggle that was expedited by war. There was a time when voting meant people could change their circumstances, and when you have half the population as a potential voting block, the political opportunists have little choice but to promise certain things. There was a protracted campaign since at least the late 1800’s for voting rights with varying results, and then there was a world war.  Women were needed in the factories because of conscription, taxes were collected from their labour, after which the universal suffrage genie was let out from a long corked bottle so to speak. It could be said in this instance that war accomplished what peaceful agitation in the late 1800's and early 20th century could not, up to the 1st of January 1919.  Obviously, other rights were only possible from that point of origin.

Legal protections?...hmmm.  I assume you know the story of the Magna Carta, that it was produced from rebellion?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

There have been progressive issues settled by conflict, of course. But that gets back to the main question - is force the only way to effect change? Have progressive people ever committed violent acts, short of starting an actual war, which resulted in lasting positive change? Other than being recognized as a cry for help which was later acted on, I can't think of any. At least not here in Canada.

Exactly. To which I'll add that police agencies have been known to infiltrate groups and perform black bloc style tactics (see Montebello). So on that basis alone, how can that tactic be defended?

Aristotleded24 wrote:

police agencies have been known to infiltrate groups and perform black bloc style tactics (see Montebello). So on that basis alone, how can that tactic be defended?

Police are constantly infiltrating and gaining infuence within many activist groups. Sometimes they push groups to become more militant. Other times they push groups to be less militant. Sometimes they just make sure nothing gets done at all. If we start discarding tactics simply because at one time or another cops have used those tactics to their benefit we'll have no tactics left. 

The gains from the early days and subsequent years of the organized labour movements for example can't be said to have been the result of motions bandied about at Sunday picnics, or the result of peaceful strolls along the pavement.  Instead the processes were bloody, brutal, and fatal in many instances. 

Ultimately, the various agreements to bestow collective bargaining rights was a brilliant response by the elite against the threat of bolshevism, as were the subsequent reforms instituted through social democratic compacts between elitism and the general population through the intermediary of government.  The murder of an entire family of elitists and the specter of the tyranny of masses pouring out onto the streets in every city represented a fresh backdrop for some time, into the 20s and 30s well after the actual events took place. 

The advent of collective bargaining however; at a stroke, subdivided the working class into have and have not categories, meaning that here and there, pockets of represented, comparatively better off workers were created amongst the general drudgery of wage slavery that was pervasive everywhere else.  As the general situation unfolded several decades later, it was almost as if lower wage earners and the destitute alike were used as a bargaining chip by both organized labour and corporatism, with one side offering up not only the prospect of production stoppages, but also the potential threat of mobilizing the general disenfranchisement found simmering at the lower strata of society, and the other side countering with scab labour arrangements backed by the muscle of the police.  This was the setting upon which today's social democratic welfare state was founded.  In part, this is also why today, it is a relatively small matter for the elite to turn the working poor against collective interests that should otherwise be theirs as well.

Today the terrain of social unrest has undergone significant seismic shifts.  There is the successful media campaign against the 'fat cat' organized labour sectors, which was directed at the poor, who no one ever really cared about at any rate as is well understood by everyone affected.  And then there is the era of globalization, offshored manufacturing, along with temporary worker visa programs issuing documents by the thousands to even poorer people around the world to come here and share in the work of the menial sectors that are still looking for wage relief, and can keep on looking for it.  As well there is the globally integrated system of market speculation and inflation that can be fine tuned and directed as a weapon, in such a was as to recuperate any losses from wage pressures that always lag behind at any rate.

When we talk about the elitist media caricature of the black bloc, or of similar tactics that are equally denigrated by the organized, entrenched, buffer zone stasis between elitism and the poor, the marginalized, the destitute, and the fed up with crap sectors of the population, whether we associate with violence and vandalism or not, this is the terrain upon which we should be examining things.

Here you go again.  You don't get the BB because you refuse to believe anything except the cartoon images that you are so fond of.  Your dismissal of anything the individual anarchists do is clearly your bias.  You refuse to believe anything but the MSM reports.

Quote:

The difference with the BB is that they came into existence around that tactic, and in terms of expressing a point, there is nothing else they do outside of these demos around international meetings that are as common as Leap Day.

[/quote]

But the real people who are involved in the BB and other anarchist groups don't seem quite so clueless.

Leah Henderson wrote:

My skills and experience — as a facilitator, as a trainer, as a legal professional and as someone linking different communities and movements –
were all targeted in this case, with the state trying to depict me as a “brainwasher” and as a mastermind of mayhem, violence and destruction.
During the week of the G8 & G20 summits, the police targeted legal observers, street medics and independent media. It is clear that the skills that make us strong, the alternatives that reduce our reliance on their systems and prefigure a new world, are the very things that they are
most afraid of.

I organize openly as an anti-colonial, anti-capitalist anarchist. My organizing is focused on movement building, and this commitment to build
skill sets and support other activists is another part of why the state has targeted me. However, this attempt to deter me has failed, just as it
has failed to deter thousands of others similarly facing police brutality and jail. I am strengthened in my resolve to build communities of
resistance. We are building the structures of a new kind of society in the midst of the old, and we cannot do that without a commitment to
skill-sharing, mutual aid and collective liberation.

http://www.passemuraille.on.ca/2012/01/03/g8g20-protests-still-reverbera...

the Huff and Fluff about Byron Sonne wrote:

Despite his two-year ordeal, which included 11 months in jail following his arrest two years ago, an ecstatic Byron Sonne said he would continue to "test" the system.

"I'm not going to stop," a trembling Sonne, 39, said after his exoneration.

"It's more important than ever that we fight against the slippery slope of what's being done with our rights, against our ability to participate how we see fit."

Sonne was arrested in the days before the June 2010 summit. Although police found no bombs, he was charged with four counts of possessing explosives and one of counselling mischief.

Police alleged he planned to combine the myriad neatly labelled legal chemicals he had at his upscale home into explosives, and that he incited others to scale or tear down the three-metre security fence erected around the main downtown summit site.

"You guys are making me look like some kind of terrorist or something," he told police after his arrest.

In her 87-page judgment that took almost two hours to read, Ontario Superior Court Justice Nancy Spies accepted Sonne's claims the chemicals police seized could have been used in pursuit of his rocketry hobby, for camping or for gardening.

Spies, who called the Crown's case "entirely circumstantial," noted Sonne had been open in numerous Internet exchanges about his intentions to test the $1-billion G20 security setup.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/15/byron-sonne-trial_n_1516949.html

Oh yes the white woman who relentlessly worked on two issues. A vote for every woman like her and sterilization for any woman who wasn't.  Thousands of marginalized women were assaulted  because of her peaceful advocacy.  Any time I hear one of her most famous quotes, “Never explain, never retract, never apologize. Just get the thing done and let them howl”  I think of poor First Nations women on the operating table howling.  Nellie did nothing for Asian women or First Nations women except help embed nefarious racist policies in our health care systems.

Quote:

though personally, I think Nellie McClung did it with way more style and got the same result

‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I'm sorry, but regardless of what individual people do, I'm not aware that the black bloc have any function at all outside of situations where there is a confrontation.

Quote:

 Wilful blindness does not define the mens rea required for particular offences. Rather, it can substitute for actual knowledge whenever knowledge is a component of the mens rea . The doctrine of wilful blindness imputes knowledge to an accused whose suspicion is aroused to the point where he or she sees the need for further inquiries, but deliberately chooses not to make those inquiries. This was similarly stated in the U.S. case of State v. McCallum : "[T]he rule is that if a party has his suspicion aroused but then deliberately omits to make further [i]nquiries, because he wishes to remain in ignorance, he is deemed to have knowledge…. The rule that wilful blindness is equivalent to knowledge is essential…."

http://www.mcmillan.ca/Contrived-Ignorance-Wilful-Blindness

Well since it is clear that the BB only really appears at places where the global 1% meet to plan their domination of the world I guess then we need to contrast their tactics with the BB.  The 1% use targeted assassinations to take out indigenous leaders in South America and drones to kill individuals in Asia who oppose their agenda.  They subvert democracies around the globe and promote corrupt business practices in every developing nations.

The BB breaks windows and torches police cars.  Yes Aristotle I see the similarities now.  Your right the elite is not any worse than the BB.

I'd like to remind babblers as this discussion gets more heated to avoid lobbing personal attacks and insulting language. That includes things like "you would say that since you're so bourgeois" and "if you support the black bloc you are a traitor to the cause/selfish/macho" etc. That also includes the various innuendo implying the above. You know what I'm talking about, yes?

Most of this discussion has been fairly thoughtful and interesting, from both sides. If you feel your temper getting to you, please take a breath before posting. Many thanks.

dp

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ onlinediscountanvile #136

Yes, I realize that people do things other than smashing windows once every few years.

Ok, I just wanted to clarify that point since it looked like you were suggesting - as people often do when discussing black blocs - that those who participate in black blocs are just thrill seekers who have no other involvement in struggle.

I'll make another couple more obvious points here. Not all black blocs engage in property destruction. And even within those that do, the window-smashers are probably a minority.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Well since it is clear that the BB only really appears at places where the global 1% meet to plan their domination of the world I guess then we need to contrast their tactics with the BB.  The 1% use targeted assassinations to take out indigenous leaders in South America and drones to kill individuals in Asia who oppose their agenda.  They subvert democracies around the globe and promote corrupt business practices in every developing nations.

The BB breaks windows and torches police cars.  Yes Aristotle I see the similarities now.  Your right the elite is not any worse than the BB.

The point is that the elite see their own cause as just, and they go to violent lengths to acihieve that cause, while any violence directed against them is, in their eyes, wrong. In other words, the ends justify the means, and some here seem to suggest that since a progressive cause is good, then any means to achieve it are good while any means to oppose it are evil. Not to deny that the elites have more power, but the thought processes are surprisingly common.

Besides, having worked with children in the past, the whole "yeah well that person is worse than what I do" really causes me personally to tune out anyways.

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

 

Ok, I just wanted to clarify that point since it looked like you were suggesting - as people often do when discussing black blocs - that those who participate in black blocs are just thrill seekers who have no other involvement in struggle.

No, I don't assume that. But I do see it as an act that is completely disconnected - disconnected from any sort of cause and effect,  disconnected in that the people they are trying to influence aren't the one's they are hurting, and disconnected in that nobody is getting the message the perpetrators want.

And I do see it as dangerous in that it can seem thrilling and potent to people who are impressionable and think that is the only way to solve problems. Plus, when you create havoc you might have a bigger theory behind it, but you can't necessarily control where it will go. You can't exactly draw a map telling people which things to smash and which to leave alone.

I guess I am saying that if people learn only  force without a foundation of what led to that force, and what comes after, all they are learning is mindless thrill-seeking.

And all most of us on the outside see is arrogant self indulgence that hurts a lot of people - not the intended lesson at all. So again, it begs the question of what the point is.

There have been enough revolutions and upheavals that failed not because there weren't people willing to grab their pitchforks when it was time to storm the Bastille, but because when it came time to do the real work the only ones who had the wherewithall were the ones who had been doing the job all along under the old regime.

That's why I think it is important to do the other work that isn't so exciting, doesn't produce instant gratification, and sometimes involves compromise.

Third Anarchist Jailed for Refusing to Testify Before Secret Grand Jury

http://rt.com/usa/news/refusing-grand-jury-plante-196/

"A third self-described anarchist from the Pacific Northwest has been jailed by federal officials for refusing to speak before a secretive grand jury that the accused have called a politically-motivated modern-day witch hunt. Leah-Lynn Plante, a mid 20s anarchist from Washington, was  lead out of court by authorities  on Wednesday after refusing for a third time to answer questions forced on her by a grand jury..."

Statement by Leah Lynn Plante (and vid)

http://tidesofflame.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/we-are-made-of-star-stuff-s...

what some BBerss do when they're not smashing windows...what are you doing for the resistance?