The Black Bloc Anarchists

[vanlose kid]

^^
white criminal adolescent middle-class BB with hard on.

*

10 Points on the Black Bloc
{ download pdf } { pdf for printing }
Introduction

The February 13th heart attack march successfully clogged the arteries of capitalism by having a riotous time through the streets of Vancouver during the convergence against the 2010 Winter Olympic Games.

In the immediate aftermath, supposed allies of the social denounced the tactics and attempted to distance themselves from the more radical elements in this movement.

In a strict breach of the statement of unity that the Olympic Resistance Network had articulated, social liberals who had little or no part in organizing any of the convergence took it upon themselves to denounce the violence of the protesters, not the violence of the police.

They also questioned the effectiveness of the black block tactic. What follows is a transcription of Harsha Walia’s (of No One Is Illegal Vancouver) words at a debate between Harsha and Derek O’Keefe on the diversity of tactics.

The full video of the debate can be viewed at:
http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/video/2916

“I could tell you that schwarze Block was a tactical form, that it was a means of preventing the police from identifying and isolating who committed what gesture during a riot. I could tell you that dressing in black meant: we are all comrades, we are all in solidarity, we are all alike, and this equality liberates us from the responsibility of accepting a fault we do not deserve: the fault of being poor in a capitalist country, the fault of being anti-fascist in the fatherland of Nazism, the fault of being libertarian in a repressive country. That it meant: nobody deserves to be punished for these reasons, and since you are attacking us we are forced to protect ourselves from violence when we march in the streets. Because war, capitalism, labor regulations, prisons, psychiatric hospitals, those things are not violent, however you see those of us who want to freely live our homosexuality, the refusal to found a family, collective life and the abolition of property as the violent ones.”

— Claire Fontaine, This is Not the Black Bloc

Thank you folks. My name’s Harsha. I have to admit, in terms of this debate, I know it’s been going on for a week but I only just read all the messages and emails floating around this morning as I tried to prepare my thoughts. I’m really frustrated and really angry to be quite honest. I’m not going to be engaging in esoteric generalizations about diversity of tactics because I think that starting point is problematic, and I’ll explain why. I’ll try to be as specific as possible about what happened on Saturday and what the organizing for that looked like.

First, I want to locate myself in this dialogue. I don’t personally engage in black block tactics, but as a long-time community organizer and as a woman of colour, I stand in full and firm support of diversity of tactics and in solidarity with those who are facing police repression during this time.

I did march on Feb 13th in the Heart Attack demonstration with other members of No One is Illegal, which is a collective of predominantly people of colour. While I cannot speak for the personal motivations and intentions of those who engage in black block tactics, I think the distance that I have from those tactics is somewhat useful in this debate, because there is this idea that only those who engage in black block actions support black block tactics. This is an attempt to marginalize and isolate our comrades which I hope my presence here will counter.

One of the criticisms of the black block tactic is that it’s undertaken by predominantly white males and therefore is inherently oppressive to women of colour and Indigenous women in particular. As a woman of colour with a myriad of precarious systemic barriers including precarious legal status and health – and I can only speak for myself – but I can say that the black block tactic does not in itself oppress me or render me more vulnerable in protest. So I’d appreciate it if other white men did not make such pronouncements on my behalf.

So that being said, I want to make ten quick points on the black block.

1. Tactic

First of all, the black block is a tactic. Like any other tactic it cannot be judged in itself, but can only be judged as part of the spectrum of a much broader movement and as part of a spectrum of tactics that we all engage in. The black block has various utilities, both defensive and offensive. I think the one point that is often missed is the defensive strategies around the black block. As people know, a lot of black block activity going back to the 70s and 80s in Europe includes really important actions including de-arresting comrades. It includes the very basic principle of no comrade left behind, that we do not leave people in the police lines and decide to flee, and for that the black block is deeply courageous.

I want to quote Barbara Ehrenreich who suggests that one of the biggest utilities of the black block is it really breaks the heavily ritualized nature of modern civil disobedience. When we talk about tactics, we have to be able to gauge the black block tactic amongst many other tactics. So the fact that other tactics may or may not be more effective does not in itself render the black block tactic any less effective. I think that’s important to state because it’s all been reduced to whether window smashing is effective or not. I think that as a starting point is fundamentally problematic, because this movement is about more than window-breaking and it’s also about window-breaking.

2. Violence

The next point that I want to make in terms of the black block – and I won’t spend much time on it because I don’t think there’s much debate here – is if the black block engages in violent tactics. The only response I really care to make to that is that we’re asking the wrong side the question about violence. If we’re going to talk about violence, we need to be talking about corporate sponsors, the state, the military, and the police who daily commit violence on people. Not a single individual and not a single animal have been harmed in the tactics of Feb 13th. What have been harmed are lifeless windows. [color=#BF0000]So let’s be very clear what we’re talking about before we start to perpetuate mainstream media rhetoric about violence and feed into our enemy’s rhetoric.[/color]

3. Masks

The fact that people are anonymous when they mask up or bloc up is not unique. As we know, people wear masks around the world, probably the most romanticized of whom are the Zapatistas. If we’re going to be able to have solidarity with global struggles, we have to understand that the reasons for wearing a mask are the same whether it’s in Chiapas or Palestine or it’s the black block on our streets. State surveillance, particularly in the context of the Olympics where people have had visits by the Vancouver Integrated Security Unit, means people need to protect themselves. To me, the black block is not anonymous. It’s a tactic and the members of the black block are known to me. If people want to come down to tent village, you’ll probably meet many of them.

4. Police Provocateurs

There is this idea, relating to anonymity, that the bloc is more susceptible to provocateurs. The entire movement is susceptible to police provocateurs. The actual police provocateurs that were ousted on February 12th were posing as journalists, not the black bloc. Another very clear example of this is what happened in Montebello when police provocateurs did present themselves as the black block, they were first outed by the black block themselves.

5. Community organizers vs. Insurrectionaries

There is an unfortunate dichotomy that has been created between so-called community day-to-day organizing and insurrectionary actions. Critics have made false digs about the lack of organizing commitment to movement-building by anarchists. I am a self-identified anarchist. The Olympic Tent Village has been thrown around a whole lot in context of this debate. As people know, the tent village is happening right now at 52 West Hastings on a Concord Pacific lot that’s currently being leased out by the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee. Anarchists have put in countless hours – and by countless hours, I mean 16-hour days – to contribute to the tent village. That includes graveyard shifts to do security (and this might be a surprise to some, but that includes de-escalation of law enforcement, which all of us are completely capable of doing), construction, cooking and clean up of the site under the leadership of Downtown Eastside residents and Elders. As someone who is on this site over 20 hours a day, I can say that sadly the same cannot be said to be true of those who appear to be strategically utilizing community-based direct actions like the tent city in debates about movement building. I want to take a moment here to thank everyone who is supporting the Downtown Eastside tent village.

6. Effectiveness

My main point, and I’ve already talked about this, is that all tactics should be judged from the same starting point.

This is, for me, the crux of the argument. It’s not that black block tactics in specific contexts are immune for criticism. If people have criticisms about the 13th, then let’s talk about specific criticisms, but all that we have seen is a general denunciation of property destruction. As far as I’m concerned, every tactic is open to criticism. That includes if we’re going to have mass rallies where politicians are given a free stage to speak despite the daily violence they are responsible for. We can talk about the fact that symbolic rallies once a year are equally ineffective. If we’re going to talk about ineffectiveness, we need to be able to have the same starting point for every single tactic. I’m thankful for this debate, but the next time that there’s a symbolic rally appealing to politicians to please give us something; let’s talk about its effectiveness too then.

Black bloc is a strategy that is part of a movement, and we can’t romanticize or generalize either way. Tactics can be effective, they can be ineffective, but inherently they are neither. Whether the black block tactic of smashing windows is simply symbolic and gains nothing, well again, a whole lot of our protests are often symbolic. Like any other mass movement, we have to gauge them as part of a long-term campaign. So if we’re going to talk about the black block tactic, we have to talk about it as part of the anti-Olympic movement. In my opinion, you can’t separate those things and as far as I know, the anti-Olympic movement as a whole including all of its parts has been very successful.

In terms of the black block tactic in and of itself, if we are to separate it out, I would argue that it has been effective for several reasons. The first is that the black block tactic does actually help build mass movements, counter to this idea that the black block marginalizes mass movement. And I think that happens in several ways. The first is that there is no monopoly on the mass movement. There are a lot of people who don’t engage is what is the monoculture of the mass movement, in symbolic protest, and who find direct action to be very empowering. From that perspective, the black block is growing, and therefore, the black block as part of the movement is helping the movement grow.

Second, corporate sponsors, in my experience, have only been mentioned in mainstream media when there have been insurrectionary attacks on them. A lot of these have happened in Ottawa, in particular, and Montreal. In terms of effectiveness, the only times that I’ve seen Hudson’s Bay Company and Royal Bank mentioned and involved in the direct Olympic industry has been when they have taken a hit.

I would also argue that black block tactics actually help open up space for more mainstream tactics to take place, and that’s something that I cannot emphasize enough. I would argue that the success of the memorial march and the success of the tent city, at least in part, were due to Saturday, Feb 13th. The reason for that is that law enforcement, because they create a good protestor/bad protestor divide, have been largely absent from the tent city. And part of the reason the tent village has gone positive mainstream media is the spin that this is a peaceful tent village that should be defended and supported. So I would argue that black block tactics absolutely do help build a broader movement, and absolutely do help build a space for various others tactics to take place, and they don’t exist in isolation of them.

Beyond that, I don’t think building a mass movement is always the gauge of the success of a tactic. If that was the case, Indigenous blockades would not be happening, because we’d have to wait for every single Canadian to denounce Canadian nationalism. Direct action happens because there is a need for it. Direct action happens because people are fighting back, and we’re not waiting for millions of people to stand beside us for the revolution to happen.

7. Undermining peaceful protestors

One of the points people have made is that sometimes bloc tactics undermine other tactics. I think this is a fair argument and I think a separation of tactics is often necessary. What was specific about this convergence is that that happened and the black block has been in communication with the organizers of the entire convergence.

Feb 12th was called as an action that was inclusive and family-friendly, and the black block was present. The front line on February 12th was held by Indigenous elders with two contingents behind them, one of which was the No One is Illegal, Canada is Illegal contingent. The contingent next to it was the black block. All of this was in consultation with the 2010 Welcoming Committee.

Let’s also not forget black block members were present in the Feb 14th Women’s Memorial March. A lot of people have strategically used the Missing and Murdered Women’s Memorial March to say people are worried about the black block infiltrating the memorial march. I’m an organizer of the memorial march. We made sure that everyone knew the protocol of the memorial march, including not wearing face masks out of respect for the missing and murdered women, and that was honoured without any issues.

The black block is present at Tent City, and has been present at every action during the week. So in terms of the thoughtfulness of the Heart Attack demonstration, I want to reiterate that there were many conversations and many commitments made to respect the other days of action.

8. Putting others at risk

February 13th was explicitly called as a diversity of tactics. As someone who marched on the 13th unmasked, I did not feel endangered. I can’t speak for everyone else, but I can speak for myself. I was happy to be there and I was happy to see the black block doing their thing.

For those who did not know what to expect there were various spokes councils, some of which were publicly announced, for anyone who was interested in getting information beforehand. Within the demonstration, there was an escalation of zones from green to red and at no point did I see the black block trying to hide under the cover of other zones. And I think that’s important to reiterate because the people who were actually arrested on February 13th from the green and orange zone have not denounced the black block, so why are other people doing it?

There is also this idea that the black block reinforces and legitimizes the police state. Well if that argument is going to be used then we may as well never be on the streets. That kind of argument is a false one, because this police state justifies itself. We cannot hold our allies accountable for the increased police brutality and the increased visits from the Vancouver Integrated Security Unit.

9. Media smears

This should be really obvious – that the media and law enforcement cannot dictate the terms of our debates. There is this idea that because we have now been denounced in the media, we have lost our credibility. As far as I am concerned, the media was never on our side! The media is not the gauge of the success of our protests, and the corporate media and the police should not be let off the hook by us replicating their smears and their denunciations. Instead, we should be very clear about not denouncing our comrades as violent. The fact that the media is not picking up on why there is property destruction against the Hudson’s Bay Company is not the fault of the black block. The media has not picked up for seven years on why people are protesting the Olympics.

10. Solidarity

Solidarity does not equal censorship. As far as I’m concerned, I don’t think that anyone who engaged in black block tactics or supports them is asking for our allies to censor themselves. What I am asking for is for people to not have facebook comments like “silly black block” and “fuck diversity of tactics”. We can emphasize communication between our allies. Let’s not denounce people publicly. Let’s not denounce people in vague generalizations. Let’s have a commitment to dialogue. Let’s have a commitment to doing that in person.

http://riselikelions.net/pamphlets/14/1 ... black-bloc

*

[Wombaticus Rex]

So wait. There's a new wrinkle here -- these people really think that wearing masks conceals their identity in 2012? That's disturbing yo. They need to catch up on Cryptogon.

[Grizzly]

Hasn't everyone come to the conclusion -especially after the Iraq war protests- that protesting in the streets means nothing?

Anti-war groups to hit the streets
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=29059
(Emergency protest in 48 cities to stop war on Iran)

Same thing vis a via OWS?

We need strikes. And walk outs.

[wordspeak2]

How do you see that vis a vis OWS? Relatively small protests grabbed the whole country's attention, because it was the right time/focus. Though I agree about strikes, walk-outs, expanding more into the community.

[JackRiddler]

... Why do they choose to piggy-back on the BB? Why do they have such a hard-on for it?

.

Harsha Walia has a female hard-on for Black Bloc and explains why:

In quoting me, why do you omit the sentence before, and then misrepresent me (in two of your posts so far) as having said BBs have a hard-on for something? I clearly meant and wrote that the cops have a hard-on for the BBs -- not only in the sense of wanting to attack the BBs but also clearly and often infiltrating BBs and posing as BBs so that they, the cops, can initiate and incite street violence at demonstrations.

Here is what I wrote:

In your answer, please do not leave out the role of police and provocateurs: Why do they choose to piggy-back on the BB? Why do they have such a hard-on for it?

Please correct this misrepresentation of me. Thank you.

Otherwise, the point is well-made that the daily violence of dominant institutions, and the physical violence of the police in attacking points of resistance (peaceful or otherwise) are enormous and insufferable. Whereas the "violence" of black-bloc tactics is almost always trivial, or does not even qualify as "violence" at all (since property damage is not violence). And, furthermore, the corporate media and the dominant institutions and our cultural training and the disinfo artists all serve to ignore the kind of violence that is enormous and matters (that of the dominant institutions, and the physical violence of the police), while vastly exaggerating and making an issue out of the generally trivial "violence" of the black bloc. It's also true that corporate media would be seeking to characterize anything OWS did as "violent" even if there was no BB. And, finally, it's true that counter-violence (in self-defense) is legitimate; for example, shooting a tear gas grenade at protesters is violent and a crime, whereas picking it up and throwing it back is an understandable and apt response.

To which I say: All true, and so what? What is the significance of the above in the context of a discussion about BB tactics? Because it's not enough to say that the big bad media is unfair to OWS in general and the BB in particular. It's not enough to point out that BB is a very small part of OWS.

Let's have the positive argument for initiating BB tactics (note: initiating. Not in response or self-defense).

In other words:

What's the positive gain in proactively breaking a Starbucks' window during a larger demonstration? What's the gain in throwing bricks from within a larger group of people who don't want to throw bricks (or be beaten up by the cops because someone threw bricks)? What is this expressing? Whom is it helping? How does it contribute to freedom? Why should I do it myself, or endorse it when others do it?

.

[vanlose kid]

point taken about the misrep. then again it fit with the general view that BB tactics are white boy antics and as such irrational and counter productive (the media hate us for it! we're losing heart's and minds!). a view that you, hedges, undead, and quite a few others in this thread share. or have i misunderstood that too?.

as for your question about BB tactics in gen. did you read Walia's piece?

on the other hand, if reducing BB tactics to breaking windows and naught else in order to "win" an argument is what you're after, knock yourself out.

*

[Wombaticus Rex]

Solidarity does not equal censorship.

Amen, and I would suggest the same is true for "discernment."

on the other hand, if reducing BB tactics to breaking windows and naught else in order to "win" an argument is what you're after, knock yourself out.

Aside from vandalism and masks, what else is there? Meaning, what else is actually theirs? I think it's telling that Walia is using the vocabulary of NVDA and critical theory to defend BB. I'm all about focusing on BB as a tactic, because that's where my problem with them lies. They are of course more complex than that but I don't see how that really matters in the limited context of this discussion. I'm sure a lot of them are into gardening and have great taste in music, but that's not really relevant to their identity. And really, I think their "politics" is about as relevant to their identity as their album collections.

The reason they're being discussed is their actions and what separates them from the rest of the movement is, again, their actions.

"The black bloc is a tactic." Yes -- and not a very good one.

...when police provocateurs did present themselves as the black block, they were first outed by the black block themselves.

That's some exceptionally tasty confirmation bias action, right there. We know they were provocateurs because we said so. We drove them away and they left - what more proof could we need?

[vanlose kid]

In defence of Black Bloc

Jonathan Moses, 5 April 2011

Jonathan Moses is a freelance writer, political activist, and aspiring historian, who is currently an organising member within the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts

In his 2006 Malinowski lecture at the LSE, David Graeber observed that any relationship underwritten by violence is analytically unequal. That is to say that it is always the weakest and most vulnerable in a partnership that has to do the hard work understanding the other person: ‘interpretative labour’, as Graeber calls it, is really a one way street. Those with control of the means of violence have the rare luxury of stupidity.

Our relationship with the state is underwritten by violence. Max Weber defined it in exactly those terms: as that which has a “monopoly on the legitimate use of violence”. So it is little wonder that the British government could afford to be idiotic in its analysis of black bloc, the “mindless thugs” who, on March 26th, broke the windows of banks, the Ritz, a Porsche dealership and Ann Summers. To Wes Streeting’s horror, they even threw paint at Topshop.

There is a worthwhile internal debate to be had about the efficacy of vandalism, the limits and acceptability of ‘political violence’. But claims that this was the act of “idiots… Basic idiots… Advanced level Über-Idiots… thugs”, who did the anti-cuts campaign “huge damage” are absurd. The rapid clamouring of everyone – with the honourable exception of UK Uncut – to disown this element of the movement should be called what it is: a violation of the basic principles of solidarity, and a regurgitation of the semantic idiocy of the powerful.

Black bloc is not an organisation; it is a tactic which arose concurrently with increasingly draconian methods of modern policing. It has its own history, its own shared understanding. It is not homogenous – neither in its politics nor its advocacy of any one form of action over another. In so much as it has an order; it consists of numerous small affinity groups, each with their own perspective of what can and cannot be justified, and each with their own willingness to act in any given way. It functions solely on two key principles: collective anonymity and mutual aid.

Networks are formed around such basic values, which are then reified aesthetically. People who choose to mask up and wear black on a demonstration are not declaring their desire to attack property; rather that they respect the autonomous agency of others – and are willing to defend them as necessary. The rationale of black bloc then, far from the clichés of aggression, is inherently defensive. Individuals within the bloc act, but it is the collective who assume the burden of defence.

The aesthetics of black bloc, of any network, define the parameters of the actions which take place within it – which is why the division between people, rather than praxis, is flawed. UK Uncut for instance maintain a ‘civil’ form of disobedience – consequently their aesthetics are open, everyday, civilian. It is this aesthetic distinction which ensures the “trust and confidence that one's fellow participants in a UK Uncut protest share a commitment to non-violence” which Stuart White worries they lose by not condemning black bloc. But Stuart’s formulation is incorrect: rather, it is the forum of UK Uncut that guarantees non-violence, not the philosophy of any and all individuals – how could a network self-police such an assurance? How can he be sure black bloc and UK Uncut weren’t fluid, interchangeable networks? This is why, as Aaron Peters points out, UK Uncut cannot, and need not, condemn anyone.

The argument follows that Saturday’s demonstrations was about the TUC, that anarchists “hijacked” the protest to get some cheap publicity. This seems an odd accusation when followed with what is normally the next objection ‘500 000 people marched, and yet the headlines the next day where all about the vandalism of black bloc!’ Did half a million people really march on March 26th in order to get some banal headlines (some “cheap publicity”) in the few papers that could be bothered to report it? Is the form of our protest now so intertwined with polite spectacle that we would rather self-sanitise than resist? No one has a monopoly on dissent. Not the TUC, nor any other organisation.

The thoughtless responses to black bloc in part indicate the extent to which the political education of the anti-cuts movement is still extremely uneven. For a student on their fourth major demonstration since November – now familiar with police Forward Intelligence Teams, the arbitrary brutality of the TSG – covering one’s face and operating collectively makes perfect sense. For others however it will seem intimidating and unnecessary, excluding those around it in participation. This is certainly a problem, but the answer is not to act as if participants are not part of the same society, aren't a product of it, don't have a critique of it, and are simply 'other'.

It is not just our education which is uneven, but our battles. Whilst the anti-cuts movement all have cause in common, for some it is livelihood, for some it is their lifestyle. For anarchists, their relationship to the state (and by extension the government) is de-facto antagonistic; its revolutionary objectives born as much from desperate survival as much as an assertive politics. So as the spaces more or less independent from the logics of state-sponsored capitalism come under increasing threat – public forums, universities, and squatting communities – the sense of besiegement is palpable. The unequivocal law of nature stands: cornered animals act out.

This is important because those involved in black bloc are also those most likely to have encountered state violence in its purest form. Whether a bailiff kicking through a squat door, a police baton to the body; or the inchoate despair of unaddressed destitution. The bloc arises as a sort of collective counterpoint to this violent emasculation – a visual manifestation of social negation. So whilst its aims are primarily tactical, its aesthetics are nonetheless politically inscribed. Dick Hebdige notes in his book Subculture how style can constitute a form of everyday resistance: black bloc takes this further, its style at use in both practicable and metaphorical dissent.

A word on violence. By which we seem to mean, as far as I can discern, not violence but vandalism. And not arbitrary vandalism either. The targets accumulatively read like a sort of summarial revenge against the worst excesses foisted upon us by capitalist society: the banking sector (financial nihilism), Ann Summers (commodified sexuality), the Ritz and a Porsche dealership (egregious wealth). All of them strong enough, rich enough, to render property damage immaterial. Rather than a single high profile occupation like Fortnum and Masons, their action was the sum of its parts; a revolution targeted not at the government, at a singular major corporation, but where we feel it most: everyday life. So perhaps its political point – of the stolen everyday – was best articulated that evening as Trafalgar square was violently cleansed: by morning, even our riots will vanish from this earth.

Contrary to Milibandian revisionism, these forms of direct action have a long history. The Suffragettes broke more windows on Oxford Street than black bloc would have dared. They ripped up paintings in the national gallery. They planted a bomb at Lloyd George’s Surrey villa. The Civil Rights movement, another example of Ed’s “peaceful but powerful protest” has been mysteriously excised of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. By contrast, the action of black bloc was decidedly non-violent. Yet we refuse to accord economic rights the same legitimacy as the right not to be discriminated by race and gender, we deny that struggle the same right to resist.

Whilst the Labour movement floundered in the 1980s, this historical myopia also conveniently forgets the alter-globalisation movement which sprung up later that decade, when black bloc first came to media prominence. With links that spread all the way from the Zapatistas of the Chiapas to the streets of Prague, London, Genoa, Seattle and Berlin; “anarchists” and their methods were at the forefront of the struggle against neoliberalism. Yet in the press, anarchists are said to have “hijacked” the TUC protest (even before it had begun), whilst police chief Bob Broadhurst “wouldn’t even call them protesters.” The way anarchists are denied (by left and right alike) their political agency, their political history, rings of an intuitive complicity with late-capitalist ideology: a factory belt for false nostalgia and forgetting.

In Milan Kundera’s essay Testaments Betrayed he looks uneasily about him at those who, having supported Communism in one era, became its sternest denouncers in the next. History had moved on, but the people within it remained static, faithfully assimilated to the dominant dogma of the time.

“This change is neither their own creation nor their own invention, not caprice or surprise or thought or madness; it has no poetry; it is nothing but a very prosaic adjustment to the changing spirit of History. That is why they don’t even notice it; in the final right, always thinking what, in their milieu, a person is supposed to think; they change not in order to draw closer to some essential self but in order to merge with everyone else; changing lets them stay unchanged.”

Nobody will denounce the Suffragettes today, or the civil rights movement. Not Ed Miliband and the Labour Party. Not Brendan Barber and the TUC. Let us not fall into the same trap of condemning those who fight in the present because it is ‘respectable’. We may just find ourselves changing to stay unchanged, whilst History changes spirit, finding redemption in posterity.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom ... black-bloc

*

[vanlose kid]

...

The reason they're being discussed is their actions and what separates them from the rest of the movement is, again, their actions.

"The black bloc is a tactic." Yes -- and not a very good one.

...

ok, seriously, questions, no snark or nothing:

why is it not effective? is there something inherent in the "tactic" that is wrong? morally? politically? psychologically?

is it because BB alienates the media and TPTB? is it BB that "attracts" police violence? if there were no BB would there be no violence? is it a question of "hearts and minds"?

on a related note: what is effective?

what, in your view, is a very good tactic?

*

[Wombaticus Rex]

To be clear about my own perspective, though, I fundamentally don't care. Take my commentary in the same vein as these two august critical thinkers:



The Black Bloc exists because it has to. My own opinions are just an accident of biology and reading. I am always grimly amused by the spectacle of "Find the Agent" games, but they happen over and over because they serve a specific purpose. Occupy, just like the Pentagon, functions as a complex adaptive system, which is a valuable metaphor for visualizing & understanding clusterfucks on this scale.

Howard Bloom synthesized it down to a 5-fold cast of characters:

1) Conformity Enforcers
2) Diversity Generators
3) Resource Shifters
4) Utility Sorters
5) Intergroup Competition

The Black Bloc is engaged in both #1 and #5. Being the being I am, I tend to occupy myself with #2 and #4. The argument we're having here is being played out all over the world and extends back through time for thousands of years. It's all necessary -- all part of the synthesis.

[vanlose kid]

^^

disagree about your claim that BB are engaged in 1 and 5.

other than that i'm just jawing with you on your porch. no animosity or anything.

*

[Simulist]

The rapid clamouring of everyone – with the honourable exception of UK Uncut – to disown this element of the movement should be called what it is: a violation of the basic principles of solidarity...

That's just dumb.

Excising a cancer may be an insult to the body, but failing to do this is an insult to the intelligence.

[seemslikeadream]

If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't be alarmed now
It's just a spring clean for the May queen

And as we wind on down the road
Our shadows taller than our soul

And if you listen very hard
The tune will come to you at last
When all are one and one is all, yeah
To be a rock and not to roll

February 08, 2012
What Gives?
A Bustle in Hedges’ Row
by RANDALL AMSTER

You would be hard-pressed to find anyone on the American Left who has not either benefited from or been influenced by the writings of Chris Hedges. His is a singular and potent voice of progressive journalism, combining the best virtues of diligent reporting and unabashed advocacy for a better world. Hedges has rightfully earned many accolades for his work, and he has been an effective chronicler of the rise of people-powered social movements in the U.S. and around the world. Undoubtedly like many others, I have personally been inspired by his writings, and have appreciated his willingness to dialogue with me on occasion. Hedges, in short, represents something of an ideal for those of us who deign to wax publicly on the issues of the day.

All of which makes his latest piece so disturbing in its full implications. Hedges calls out the anarchist-influenced Black Bloc as “the cancer of the Occupy movement,” and in the process vilifies with a broad brush an entire class of activists and anarchists as “not only deeply intolerant but stupid,” accusing them of “hijacking” and/or seeking to destroy Occupy and other progressive movements. The problems with his analysis are numerous, including that he points to a mere handful of sensationalized episodes of alleged “violence” without subjecting them to further scrutiny or engaging the voluminous literature in social movements discourse on what even constitutes violence, as well as the utility of potentially disruptive tactics in the annals of social change. Indeed, Hedges himself seems to comprehend this, and has written favorably about it in other contexts:

“Here’s to the Greeks. They know what to do when corporations pillage and loot their country. They know what to do when they are told their pensions, benefits and jobs have to be cut to pay corporate banks, which screwed them in the first place. Call a general strike. Riot. Shut down the city centers. Toss the bastards out. Do not be afraid of the language of class warfare – the rich versus the poor, the oligarchs versus the citizens, the capitalists versus the proletariat. The Greeks, unlike most of us, get it.”

So what gives? How is it that someone of his stature, influence, and insight has seemingly “drank the Kool-Aid” of divisiveness and internal finger-pointing that the power elite so obviously want to inculcate within our movements? Does Hedges really believe that a relatively small subset of the larger movement is somehow responsible for scuttling Occupy nationwide? Never mind the coordinated and militaristic assaults on the camps, media smear campaigns, unjustified mass arrests, or police-instigated violence in many locales – better to blame those black-clad anarchists in our otherwise-equanimous midst who broke a few windows and tried to actually occupy a couple of buildings for the use of the movement and houseless people alike. Seriously? It’s Greek to me.

Now, don’t get me wrong: the tactics and strategies deployed within a movement are fair game for critical intervention and even open contestation if we believe them to be dangerous or misguided. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking the hard questions and calling people to account for the consequences of their actions. In fact, Occupy itself possesses mechanisms for precisely this sort of internal reflection, through the use of consensus-based processes and the workings of the participatory General Assembly model. Anyone is free to advance a vision, air grievances, urge a course of action, engage a debate, or offer alternatives for the group’s consideration. The task is to reinvigorate our collective capacities to reach agreement, rather than excise those who disagree.

A few months ago, when similar arguments about the “destruction of Occupy” were being raised by others in the milieu, I wrote a piece urging inclusivity rather than cashiering out conflicting actors:

“To reject someone from the open spaces of a movement that is purporting to represent the 99 percent is to consign them to where, exactly? Since they are presumably not part of the 1 percent (hired provocateurs aside), if they are banished from the 99 percent what options does that leave them? When a movement decides to ‘self-police,’ that shouldn’t be confused with adopting the same punitive and illogical methods of the state. We can forge agreements and work by consensus, but that cannot be used as a wedge to weed out and expunge those who contravene our best-laid plans. Rather, the aim should be to create processes based on the best practices of restorative justice, peacekeeping, and personal healing in order to promote points of contact and ongoing dialogue among all who find their way to the movement. We won’t all agree on everything, but surely we can at least maintain a perspective in which our interests are seen as broadly aligned and our common humanity remains intact…. Rather than seeing the presence of divergent elements as a threat to movement cohesion or as an exploitable image that the media will seize upon to denigrate us further, Occupy encampments can become models of communities that don’t simply warehouse unpopular or difficult elements, but instead work with them to promote the creation of a society based on mutual respect and the utilization of the productive capacities of all of its members.”

The issue for Hedges, as far as I can tell, seems to be a genuine concern that dangerous factions are hijacking the movement – and thus, not to call for their excision is somehow cowardly. He cites the example of Martin Luther King remaining steadfastly nonviolent in the face of official repression as the key to delegitimizing official power, and potentially as creating a pathway to “win the hearts and minds of the wider public” and even perhaps “some within the structures of power.” Yet King took great pains not to publicly oppose the more militant wings of the Civil Rights movement, focusing instead on developing an empathetic and healing posture toward those who would resort to tactics that he deemed unwise, immoral, or ineffective in the context of the larger movement, as reflected in this statement from Stanford University’s King Papers Project:

“Although King was hesitant to criticize Black Power openly, he told his staff on 14 November 1966 that Black Power ‘was born from the wombs of despair and disappointment. Black Power is a cry of pain. It is in fact a reaction to the failure of White Power to deliver the promises and to do it in a hurry.… The cry of Black Power is really a cry of hurt.’’’

In many ways this is the essence of nonviolence, as longtime advocate and practitioner George Lakey observed in an email message discussing the implications of Hedges’ recent piece:

“Let’s decide now not to use Chris Hedges as a model for how to respond to the Black Bloc. Demonizing, calling them names, using the giveaway metaphor ‘cancer’ (I’ve had cancer) is about as far away from effectively opposing a tendency one disagrees with as it’s possible to get. We have such good models in our tradition. Dr. King, James Lawson, John Lewis, and so many others in the civil rights movement who had to respond to pro-violence activists showed us how to do it. They were themselves mentored by people like A. J. Muste whose largeness of spirit in dealing with pro-violence forces went all the way back to the 1919 Lawrence, MA, textile strike…. Reducing a group of people who are not monolithic and are themselves frightened and trying to learn how to express their deep convictions in effective ways to a demonic force is beneath us. Hedges writes like someone badly frightened, and is way over the line…. We get enough of the ‘Be very afraid’ stuff from the Right Wing.”

As one commenter (“swaneagle”) on Truthout similarly observed in response to Hedges:

“The situation with the black bloc is indeed very serious. How we deal with it will decide the course of our current international struggle. We are all so deeply interconnected now. We cannot afford to throw all those involved with the misguided DOT [diversity of tactics] away as cancerous. Rather, we must proceed with deep love, care and intelligence in shaping something that more precisely represents the goals and dreams we all can share in. This is not just the vision of people engaging in more domineering bully behaviors, but the joint efforts of each one of us. Please reconsider what you deem cancerous Chris Hedges, for it may rise out of this current turmoil as key to [a] solution for us all. It is our challenge and our sacred duty to face this with all we know with all our hearts and all the voices still excluded.”

Going forward, I believe we should heed these calls to embrace the actor while critically engaging the action. As difficult as this practice may be, we might consider applying its teachings not only to the challenging cadres within our movements, but even toward the 1 percent and their agents as well. Isn’t it possible that their inner fears and human failings are driving them, too? Every great peacemaker throughout history has counseled us to strive to see the essential humanity of those appearing as adversaries or even antagonists. We don’t have to accept their divisive and destructive actions, yet the task of refusing to replicate them is incumbent upon us as we forge a new society.

We can surmise that someone of Hedges’ caliber is aware of this. Despite ruffling some feathers with his caustic words, he has provided us with an object lesson in the need for renewed empathy.

[vanlose kid]

The rapid clamouring of everyone – with the honourable exception of UK Uncut – to disown this element of the movement should be called what it is: a violation of the basic principles of solidarity...

That's just dumb.

Excising a cancer may be an insult to the body, but failing to do this is an insult to the intelligence.

here's more on the CANCER from the CANCER.

In defense of the black bloc: A communique from Olympic resisters
A communiqué

by anonymous →Cooperatives, →2010 Olympics

February 14th, 2010 – Vancouver, Coast Salish Territories

On February 12th and 13th, 2010, thousands of courageous individuals came
together to resist the 2010 Olympic police state and to attack the
corporations plundering the land and deepening poverty. We write this
communique as participants in and organizers of the black bloc presence at
these demonstrations, known as “Take Back Our City” and “2010 Heart
Attack.”

On February 12th, the Vancouver Police Department pacified us with a force
of mounted police. The next day during 2010 Heart Attack, they deployed
riot police armed with M4 carbine assault rifles. They claim this was
necessary in order to stop the march from “jeopardizing public safety” – yet the
only threats to public safety were in their own hands. Participants in the
demonstration only undertook strategic attacks against corporations
sponsoring the Olympics and did not harm or attack bystanders.

The media are now busy denouncing the political violence of property
destruction, such as the smashing of a Hudson's Bay Company window, as
though it were the only act of violence happening in this city. They
forget that economic violence goes on daily in Vancouver. People are
suffering and dying from preventable causes because welfare doesn't give
enough to afford rent, food or medicine, and because authorities routinely
ignore the medical emergencies of poor or houseless individuals. This
economic violence has gotten worse as we lose housing and social services
because of the Olympic Games. In response to this assault, thousands took
to the streets, hundreds joining what is known as a black bloc.

The black bloc is not a formal organization; it has no leadership,
membership, or headquarters. Instead, the black bloc is a tactic: it is
something people *do* in order to accomplish a specific purpose. By
wearing black clothing and masking our faces, the black bloc allows for
greater protection to those who choose active self-defense. The majority
of people involved in the black bloc do not participate in property
destruction. However, in masking up they express their solidarity with
those who choose to take autonomous direct action against the
corporations, authorities and politicians who wage war on our communities.

Participation in the black bloc is an act of courage. With only the
shirts on our backs and the masks on our faces, we took to the streets
against Canada's largest ever “peacetime” police force. Protected only by
black fabric and the support of our comrades, we stood in front of
antiriot cops armed with assault rifles, pistols and batons. We proved that $1
billion of “security” couldn't prevent us from clogging the heart of
downtown Vancouver and crashing a party of 100 000 people -- and getting
away with it.

You won't ever know who was in the black bloc this weekend, but you *do*
know us. We are the people who organize community potlucks, who dance
during street festivals, who make art, defend the land, build co-ops,
bicycles and community gardens. When we put on our black clothing, we are
not a threat to you, but to the elites.

Whoever you are, one day you will join us. As long as government and
corporations attack our communities, we're going defend – and that means
attack.

Signed,

Two organizers and participants in the anarchist presence of the “Take
back our city” demonstration and “2010 Heart Attack” street march,
February 2010, Coast Salish Territories

http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/story/2792

*

[Simulist]

Blocanoma.