Monday, September 13, 2010
HUMOUR:
ANTIS AND PROS:
Labels: anarchist cartoons, black block, cartoons, humour, jokes, leftism, leftist language
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
ANARCHIST TACTICS:
DESTRUCTIVE TACTICS:
The following is from another Winnipeg blog 'The Plan'. it's all about the so-called 'black bloc' tactics that manage to make their way to pretty well all of the major demonstrations in North America. Despite having never been able to present a single person who has been won to radical politics let alone anarchism in almost 20 years the defenders of this sort of thing soldier on. I don't count those who already were anarchists or leftists. I mean it...not one single demonstrable success in terms of only one person who did not agree with the ideology to begin with in the better part of two decades. Or at least there has never been any such testimonial. This sort of thing has to stand as one of the true monuments to irrationality. Maybe it's time to rethink such things. That is what the following suggests.
@@@@@@@@
Destructive Tactics
The debate over the use of Black Bloc tactics has been happening for years, but was recently thrust into the spotlight by the events of the Toronto G20 Summit. Although I haven't participated in a full-scale discussion on the topic of Black Bloc tactics with my fellow anarchists and socialists, it appears that many people on the radical left are “in solidarity” with the Black Bloc and favour a “diversity of tactics”. On the other side, you have moderate leftists who, for the most part, condemn the Black Bloc. Some even go as far as to blame the Black Bloc for the crackdown that resulted in the arrest and detention of hundreds of “peaceful” protesters. I don't have much use for empty platitudes such as “in solidarity,” and I reserve my condemnation for my ideological enemies. Therefore, I wouldn't classify my position on this matter as typically radical or typically mainstream. Instead, I hope that I've formulated an opinion that achieves pragmatism and avoids the pitfalls of orthodoxy.
Before we proceed any further, let us abandon the euphemistic phrase “Black Bloc tactics” and call a spade a spade. We're talking about property destruction. Whether you believe that “property” is a legitimate concept and whether the property is private or public, we should all be able to agree that what is at issue in the Black-Bloc-at-the-Toronto-G20 debate is property destruction. Whatever else one wishes to place under the umbrella of “Black Bloc tactics” should not be germane to this discussion.
Before engaging in any political act, it is of the utmost importance to first determine the intended goal of the act. In almost every case, the goal of the highest import is to affect change; often, this is impossible or implausible to achieve directly. Therefore, one must frequently resort to to affecting change indirectly; often by winning ideological converts.
Did the property destruction that took place at the G20 affect change directly? The answer is an emphatic no. The corporations that own those damaged storefronts collected their insurance money and continued with business as usual. The agenda of the summit proceeded exactly as planned. The heads of state who participated in the summit were not inconvenienced in the slightest. The headless zombie that is capitalism continues to plod forward with as much cold brutality as ever before.
Did the property destruction affect change indirectly? Again, an emphatic no. Instead of winning converts, the images of burning police cars and broken windows served to alienate a great many potential allies. Those very same images allowed the federal and provincial governments to justify (in the eyes of the public) the billion dollar security budget and the audacious crackdown on protesters. The police didn't need the anarchists to justify the security budget, but it definitely helped. Without the property destruction, that sort of expenditure in the midst of an economic recession would have been much harder to justify and the crackdown may very well have not taken place. If the crackdown had still taken place, a greater number of people would be persuaded to see it as an overreaction.
Another indirect result of the property destruction was that the important messages about human rights, the environment, globalization, etc. that were being expressed by the protesters were lost in the din and more easily ignored by the mainstream media and the public.
There is some good that can be salvaged from the the events of Toronto. We now have a perfect opportunity to openly dialogue about tactics and how protests should look going forward. Also, through a concerted effort we can draw the public's attention to the fact that the vast majority of those who were brutalized by the police were completely innocent of anything remotely resembling a crime. With the right message, this can be used as an opportunity to win converts to the side of anti-statism, anti-capitalism, or at the very least, anti-Conservative-ism.
I long to engage in this debate with my friends on the left. Do tactics matter? If so, how should they be guided? Should we do what feels good or should we do what works? What does “works” mean in the context of protests? What are the goals we are seeking to achieve? I contend that if we are hoping to achieve radical change, then tactics are foundational to that pursuit. The way to achieve radical change is to gain popular support from a wide swath of society. This doesn't mean watering down ideology to make it palatable to the masses, but it does mean that we need to communicate our ideas in such a way that people will be able to hear, understand and consider them.
Some activists and commentators are saying that the property destruction that occurred in Toronto paled in comparison to the violence perpetrated by the police. Of course this is true. But that doesn't make property destruction a good idea or the actions of the Black Bloc justified in any way. Why not endeavour to draw an even greater distinction between the radical left and the fascist corporate foot soldiers that make up the police force? When oppression is blatant and heavy-handed, the response to that oppression can be equally primitive and be successful. In modern Western nations where oppression is subtle and sophisticated, our response needs to be equally nuanced.
Smashing windows and responding to police force with force is primitive. These acts only communicates rage and randomness to the average person. We must ensure that our actions communicate messages that are obvious and unambiguous.
Actions that are illegal are not a problem in themselves. Actions that provoke the police are not problematic in themselves. Breaking laws that can be demonstrated to be illegitimate or bringing about a police response that can be demonstrated to be illegitimate are effective strategies. Instead of burning police cars, let's cover them in flowers or colourful paint. Instead of smashing windows, let's cover them in slogans that will raise the consciousness of the populace. Let's render their security expenditures absurd by appearing completely nonthreatening to the general public. Let's do the opposite of what the police and government expect and want by creating iconic images of non-violent civil disobedience that will resonate long after we're gone.
I hope this can be the start of a productive dialogue. Please post a comment below and let me know what you think.
Destructive Tactics
The debate over the use of Black Bloc tactics has been happening for years, but was recently thrust into the spotlight by the events of the Toronto G20 Summit. Although I haven't participated in a full-scale discussion on the topic of Black Bloc tactics with my fellow anarchists and socialists, it appears that many people on the radical left are “in solidarity” with the Black Bloc and favour a “diversity of tactics”. On the other side, you have moderate leftists who, for the most part, condemn the Black Bloc. Some even go as far as to blame the Black Bloc for the crackdown that resulted in the arrest and detention of hundreds of “peaceful” protesters. I don't have much use for empty platitudes such as “in solidarity,” and I reserve my condemnation for my ideological enemies. Therefore, I wouldn't classify my position on this matter as typically radical or typically mainstream. Instead, I hope that I've formulated an opinion that achieves pragmatism and avoids the pitfalls of orthodoxy.
Before we proceed any further, let us abandon the euphemistic phrase “Black Bloc tactics” and call a spade a spade. We're talking about property destruction. Whether you believe that “property” is a legitimate concept and whether the property is private or public, we should all be able to agree that what is at issue in the Black-Bloc-at-the-Toronto-G20 debate is property destruction. Whatever else one wishes to place under the umbrella of “Black Bloc tactics” should not be germane to this discussion.
Before engaging in any political act, it is of the utmost importance to first determine the intended goal of the act. In almost every case, the goal of the highest import is to affect change; often, this is impossible or implausible to achieve directly. Therefore, one must frequently resort to to affecting change indirectly; often by winning ideological converts.
Did the property destruction that took place at the G20 affect change directly? The answer is an emphatic no. The corporations that own those damaged storefronts collected their insurance money and continued with business as usual. The agenda of the summit proceeded exactly as planned. The heads of state who participated in the summit were not inconvenienced in the slightest. The headless zombie that is capitalism continues to plod forward with as much cold brutality as ever before.
Did the property destruction affect change indirectly? Again, an emphatic no. Instead of winning converts, the images of burning police cars and broken windows served to alienate a great many potential allies. Those very same images allowed the federal and provincial governments to justify (in the eyes of the public) the billion dollar security budget and the audacious crackdown on protesters. The police didn't need the anarchists to justify the security budget, but it definitely helped. Without the property destruction, that sort of expenditure in the midst of an economic recession would have been much harder to justify and the crackdown may very well have not taken place. If the crackdown had still taken place, a greater number of people would be persuaded to see it as an overreaction.
Another indirect result of the property destruction was that the important messages about human rights, the environment, globalization, etc. that were being expressed by the protesters were lost in the din and more easily ignored by the mainstream media and the public.
There is some good that can be salvaged from the the events of Toronto. We now have a perfect opportunity to openly dialogue about tactics and how protests should look going forward. Also, through a concerted effort we can draw the public's attention to the fact that the vast majority of those who were brutalized by the police were completely innocent of anything remotely resembling a crime. With the right message, this can be used as an opportunity to win converts to the side of anti-statism, anti-capitalism, or at the very least, anti-Conservative-ism.
I long to engage in this debate with my friends on the left. Do tactics matter? If so, how should they be guided? Should we do what feels good or should we do what works? What does “works” mean in the context of protests? What are the goals we are seeking to achieve? I contend that if we are hoping to achieve radical change, then tactics are foundational to that pursuit. The way to achieve radical change is to gain popular support from a wide swath of society. This doesn't mean watering down ideology to make it palatable to the masses, but it does mean that we need to communicate our ideas in such a way that people will be able to hear, understand and consider them.
Some activists and commentators are saying that the property destruction that occurred in Toronto paled in comparison to the violence perpetrated by the police. Of course this is true. But that doesn't make property destruction a good idea or the actions of the Black Bloc justified in any way. Why not endeavour to draw an even greater distinction between the radical left and the fascist corporate foot soldiers that make up the police force? When oppression is blatant and heavy-handed, the response to that oppression can be equally primitive and be successful. In modern Western nations where oppression is subtle and sophisticated, our response needs to be equally nuanced.
Smashing windows and responding to police force with force is primitive. These acts only communicates rage and randomness to the average person. We must ensure that our actions communicate messages that are obvious and unambiguous.
Actions that are illegal are not a problem in themselves. Actions that provoke the police are not problematic in themselves. Breaking laws that can be demonstrated to be illegitimate or bringing about a police response that can be demonstrated to be illegitimate are effective strategies. Instead of burning police cars, let's cover them in flowers or colourful paint. Instead of smashing windows, let's cover them in slogans that will raise the consciousness of the populace. Let's render their security expenditures absurd by appearing completely nonthreatening to the general public. Let's do the opposite of what the police and government expect and want by creating iconic images of non-violent civil disobedience that will resonate long after we're gone.
I hope this can be the start of a productive dialogue. Please post a comment below and let me know what you think.
Labels: anarchism, anarchist theory, black block, tactics, violence
Thursday, February 25, 2010
ANARCHIST TACTICS:
A BLACK BLOCK FABLE:
Once upon a time there was a war. Now it has to admitted that it wasn't much of a war. One side had division after division, a navy, an air force, excellent logistics, an army and the ultimate in artillery. Christ, did they have artillery. The other side, well they had a few ragtag troops, often burdened with outdated weapons or, what was worse, new weapons that were worse than useless, tending to blow up in their hands and hurt the handlers much more than the enemy.
Now the general principle of the smaller army should have been simple...avoid pitched battles, sneak around and wear down the enemy by small victories. The smaller army, however, operated under another handicap...that of some its own soldiers. Now it had been demonstrated over and over during the course of this long war that the larger army had often infiltrated the smaller one and encouraged its agents to sabotage the actions of the small army. Despite this repeated demonstration the smaller army steadfastly refused condemn their so-called "comrades" who did, out of stupidity, what the agents of the larger army did out of guile.
What exactly did they do ? As I said it was a long war. Over the course of over a century the smaller army had been parasitized by some who, when the small army was engaged in a march to achieve a small victory would jump up out of cover, yelling insults at the top of their lungs at the enemy, and, instead of using what little firepower they did have would throw sticks, stones and spittle in the general direction of the large army. Did I mention that the larger army had excellent artillery ?
As time wore on these people seemed to undergo a metamorphosis. Instead of seeming like mad fools who wanted to get themselves killed they would only do their little pantomime when they had a clear route of escape. To say the least they didn't consider it important that the rest of the small army should have such an exit route. In their more honest moments they said that it was "good" that the others had to take the shells because it would make them as "brave" as those who provoked the shelling.
That was all fine and good, but what was really to the detriment of the smaller army was that they occasionally made allies which they would attempt to treat with more or less respect. Some of these allies were actually quite larger than the smaller army. Now, if the 'jump up and yell brigade' had little consideration for their fellow soldiers in the small army they had a great hatred for these allies, much more hatred than they had for the enemy in fact. It was a great source of joy to them that these allies would often take the consequences of their actions. When questioned the screamers would say that it was good that the allies would suffer causalities because that would convince them that the enemy was bad and that no truces could be signed with them. Of course it, more often than not, convinced the allies that the enemy was far less evil than the small army. It was also well beyond the limited comprehension of 'Loud Company' that the allies wouldn't be allies unless they were already convinced of the perfidy of the enemy...until it was demonstrated that the small army was worse.
This situation went on and on and on. In most wars how such a situation would have been dealt with would depend basically upon the availability of transport to military prisons and the humanity of an army in allowing a "psycho-discharge" to such people. The smaller army, however, both because it was small and hated to lose any adherents and also because it was a totally volunteer force that often held up individual freedom over military efficiency usually failed to deal with such disruptive elements in any effective way. There were rare exceptions, such as in the mid-1930s, when the smaller army gained a temporary advantage over the larger in a small area of operations. At the very beginning of that campaign the smaller army put its disruptive elements on notice that their antics wouldn't be tolerated in a serious war. In most other situations the smaller army allowed the yellers the delusion that they were the "real soldiers", and allowed them to insult their comrades (to say nothing of the allies) as much as their little hearts desired.
La guerre continue. The smaller army is burdened by what is probably an inherent genetic tendency to attract its eternal share of perpetual saboteurs, to the great delight of the larger army. There is probably no way to ship all the bastards to the rear and put them to work doing something useful for a change. The best that the small army can do is recognize publicly what their loose cannons are. If nothing else this would make smoothing matters over with the allies easier when they see-rightly- that idiots have messed up their own actions. It might even lead to just enough control, even if not perfect, to prevent at least a few artillery attacks. Without this honest description, which the saboteurs want to avoid at all costs, the small army is doomed...to remain the small army forever. You cannot run real campaigns with allies when you are burdened with such detrimental adherents.
Labels: anarchism, black block, metaphor, tactics
Monday, February 22, 2010
CANADIAN POLITICS-VANCOUVER:
TENT VILLAGE NEEDS YOUR HELP:
The Winter Olympics continue. The clown show of the 'Black Block' is over and done with as the participants slink back to their holes, congratulating themselves about how "brave" they were and how much they accomplished by smashing a few windows and running like hell from the cops. The real protests against the Winter Games, however, continue, and one of these is the "tent village" set up to protest homelessness while billions are thrown at the spectacle of the Olympics. The Village is looking for your support. Here, from the Olympic Resistance Network, is the story and appeal.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Olympic Tent Village Enters Week 2,
Needs Your Ongoing Support:
OLYMPIC TENT VILLAGE ENTERS WEEK 2,
OLYMPIC TENT VILLAGE ENTERS WEEK 2,
NEEDS YOUR ONGOING SUPPORT!
Since Feb 15, 2010 the Olympic Tent Village has been set up at 58 West Hastings, an empty lot owned by notorious condo developer Concord Pacific, currently being leased by VANOC as a parking lot for the Olympics. The first few days at the Olympic Tent Village have gone strongly and smoothly, thanks to the community effort to support and defend it. Hundreds have gathered during the evening and through the night, especially DTES residents, homeless people, and youth.
* Read Issue 1 of Tent Village Voice:
* Watch videos of DTES residents and homeless people residing at Tent Village: http://olympictentvillage.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/media/
Over the next week, we are calling on all supporters to continue to defend the Olympic Tent Village and to support the residents. We need:
- Volunteers to help cook at the Tent Village anytime drop-in starting at 8 am till 8 pm.
- Supporters to be present during the day 8 am to 4 pm and overnight 6 pm to 6 am.
- Independent media, legal observers and others with cameras in case of emergencies (please note, due to privacy concerns, there is no recording in the Tent Village otherwise)
- On site medic support especially overnight from 6 pm to 6 am.
- Donations of non perishable food items, tarps, tents, blankets, sleeping bags.
The 2010 Winter Olympics has escalated the homelessness crisis in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside - Canada's poorest postal code - and the Greater Vancouver area. Since the Olympic bid, homelessness has nearly tripled in the GVRD, while real estate and condominium development in the Downtown Eastside is outpacing social housing by a rate of 3:1.
Meanwhile, a heightened police presence has further criminalized those living in extreme material poverty in the poorest postal code in Canada. With the eyes of the world on Vancouver, residents of the Downtown Eastside and our supporters of the Olympic Tent Village want:
1. Real action to end homelessness now
2. End condo development and displacement in the Downtown Eastside
3. End discriminatory ticketing, police harassment, and all forms of criminalization of poverty.
The Olympic Tent Village has been an inspiring action to take over public space and empty lots, a powerful testament to the building of community, and a reclamation of dignity and freedom amidst daily systemic poverty and injustice.
For updates, articles, video, photos, and further information on how to support: http://olympictentvillage.wordpress.com/
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Molly Note:
Don't worry. I'll eventually get to my usual denunciation of those who hide their personal psychology under the guise of "anarchism" and "politics". Until then, however, i merely have to mention the obvious, obvious to anyone who isn't bound by the ideology of a subculture. If you represent the political views of a minority, and a very small minority at that, you just might want to represent yourself (and actually be whatever you have been taught by post-modernist professors) as having the "moral high ground". The action of the "tent village", in my mind, serves this purpose very well in that it is exemplary in its non-violence, and any violence towards it by the state will rebound to the odium of the state. This is in stark contrast to those who want to pretend to the anarchist idea of "direct action" by doing the 'symbolic action" of , as I said, minor vandalism and running as fast as they can. The people at the "tent village", whether they carry it out or not, have made their intention to stand their ground in a non-violent way and accept the consequences very plain. Let's take bets. Which way is more useful when you want to speak to the "unconvinced" ? Oh, I forgot, the "heroes" of the overturned mailbox think that the "unconvinced" are irretrievably deluded, and their joy is merely to insult them while doing the "real politics" of running away from the cops as fast as they can.
Ooops, I've started on what I promised to leave until later. so be it. Definitely more later.
Labels: 2010 Winter Olympics, black block, Canadian politics, direct action, fools, Olympic Resistance Network, sports, tactics, Vancouver
