> Free speech. Obviously either/or post hoc debates are at a point of diminishing
> returns as well, although we need to spend way more time disucssing genderraceclass.
> What can we learn from a DR argument against PD? I understand throwing back anything
> the cops shoot at us and I loved the catapult, but the asshole contingent needs to be
> addressed big time. The police, while they are saps, are not the enemy.
Free speech? How about the cocept of being tactful when talking to the media? Did the black bloc or other anarchists publicly diss the pacifists who attacked us in Seattle? No. Have we made a big deal about the SalAMI pacifists who PEPPER-SPRAYED black blocers in Quebec City? No. I'm all for debate and disucussion, but it is plain stupid to air our dirty laundry in front of journalists who are looking for stories and information that will help them drive wedges between us. My friends in the Mobilization for Global Justice understand this quite well; I thanked them for issuing a press release last week that stood by the anarchist involvement in the World Bank protests, after the Assistant Chief of Police had been quoted about "criminal anarchists."
Yes, the asshole contingent needs to be addressed, be they pacifists or black blocers. What I don't think people understand is that in Quebec City, most of the fighting was done by local residents. I understand that the cops are not the enemy and underscored this in my interview with W-FIVE. The capitalists are our enemy and the cops get in the way. For some working class anarchists, the cops are also the enemy because they harass them. If you want to see this in action, I suggest you watch the next time the black bloc joins a larger demo like we did several weeks ago at the NOW rally. The Park police surrounded us instantly and the MPD harassed us over our tame sign.
> Sure, I agree that we need to be on the lookout for provocateurs. But
> it's one thing to keep an eye out for these people and quite another to
> devalue somebody's resistance by saying that agent provocateurs were the
> ones behind an act. This way of thinking was stupidly demonstrated after
> Seattle, when a few activists simply couldn't comprehend that some
> anarchists would deliberately destroy property for political reasons.
> They had to go write articles that blamed the p-d on undercover cops.
> =================
> And it's another thing to ask what the point of beer bottle throwing at the cops is
> for. I thought beer/pot etc. was for after the demos. Solidarity is it's own high and
> in many respects is way superior to boozeweed. How about a "rule" that we only throw
> back what they shoot at us?
I wasn't in Quebec City, but I understand that most of the bottle-throwing came from the locals. Do you have problems with working class people fighting back against an invasion of their neighborhood by the violent elements of the state?
In Seattle people threw stuff back after the cops started stuff. I'm not sure rules will do much good when the cops are being violent. I agree that communication about tactics at actions is necessary. I think those discussions have been pretty good so far.
> They have a file on me, which is why I don't wear a mask. I'm also not
> very likely to throw shit at the cops or destroy property. But there are
> others who don't want to be known, who want anonymity to do illegal
> actions, and don't relish the idea of getting their face on TV so their
> boss recognizes them and fires them.
> ===================
> Anarchists are afraid of getting fired?
Of course, we have to pay the rent too! I can't speak for the anarchists who do the black bloc, but I suspect that some of them are more militant when they are masked up.
> What Ghandi, MLK or Sacco and Vanzetti did are irrelevent. There is no
> need to make a "dead leader on a pedestal" argument here.
> =========
>
> No dlop from me; just that their strategies need to be appreciated as do those of
> radical feminist organizers least PD become an end in itself.
> I think what Marcos said about the masks is relevent. He said that
> nobody noticed the Indians until they wore a mask. With a mask, they
> gained visibility. Given the amount of attention paid to black bloc
> masks, by police and protesters alike, it seems to work for us too.
> We've gained visibility.
> ==========
> And negativity, big time. Many will say you're hoggin' the limelight that blocks out
> THE ISSUES.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't hold up to careful scrutiny. On one level, its a problem with what the media decides to cover. For example, a local IMC videographer told me about a conversation he overheard on the plane to Quebec between several Reuters journalists. They had already written their story and were only going to QC to get pictures of the fence being knocked down and molotovs being thrown.
I watched the TV news coverage of Quebec City last weekend. What I saw was that when they decided to talk about issues, they interviewed folks from NGOs like Public Citizen and Earth Justice. I think the only time I heard "anti-capitalists" mentioned was on ABC Evening News. The NGOs and other groups benefit from the more militant tactics that are being practiced on the streets. They know this and they wink at us when they get a chance.
> Alright, then let's talk about pacifist provocateurs who conspire to
> make our movements ineffective and powerless.
> =================
> That's not the point. The point is is whether there are going to be binding
> agreements that if a majority feels PD etc. is unecessary and counterproductive
> others will respect that. If not, then what's the point of PD that the majority
> didn't understand when they argue that it was counterproductive. The issue is a
> tyranny of minorities who do what they want only because "we don't need to listen to
> a bunch of middle class wankers". Is the majority always wrong on tactics? Or is
> disagreement an end in itself too?
Ian, I understand what you are saying, but I think the majority now accepts property destruction as necessary on when the situation warrants. Anarchists who do black bloc certainly understand that p-d isn't always the wisest thing to do. If p-d has become accepted by a majority, how do we make it possible for those who don't like p-d to be able to participate? Do we segregrate protest by physical zones? Do we do it temporally? Does 50 Years is Enough to their march on Saturday and the black bloc on Sunday?
> The charge of provocateur
> has been frequently lodged against the black bloc and others who engage
> in mitlitant tactics. I've often wondered if anybody has ever considered
> that the capitalist class and the cops have an interest in making sure
> that the pacifists are seen as the legitimate voice of dissent. Given
> that property destruction has helped our movement grow and gain
> attention, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the capitalists and
> the police to fund the pacifists? It's not like the pacifists ever made
> the news when they dominated the various Left movements. They've done
> thousands of protests against nuclear weapons and war, but they've never
> cracked page 1 of the newspaper.
> ========
>
> MLK never made the news? We need media verification to exist Bishop Berkeley :-)? PD
> also helped the capitalist movement grow, remember?
I forgot to limit my statement to the past 30 years. A good example of pacifist failure were the protests against the Gulf War.
> I'm for critique and metacritique all around, that's why I'm saying we need to
> rethink the propensities for PD to become an end in itself as part and parcel of
> demos. The capitalists and their proxies get the point of the PD already, that's why
> we need to discuss other potentially more effective tactics.
I agree with you, about the propensity for PD to become an end in itself, but frankly, I don't think it is used enough. If we're going to do any critique about tactics, we should examine any form that becomes and end in itself, be it p-d or civil disobedience.
<< Chuck0 >>
Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Homepage -> http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/home/
INTERNATIONALISM IN PRACTICE
An American soldier in a hospital explained how he was wounded: He said, "I was told that the way to tell a hostile Vietnamese from a friendly Vietnamese was to shout ‘To hell with Ho Chi Minh!’ If he shoots, he’s unfriendly. So I saw this dude and yelled ‘To hell with Ho Chi Minh!’ and he yelled back, ‘To hell with President Johnson!’ We were shaking hands when a truck hit us."
(from 1,001 Ways to Beat the Draft, by Tuli Kupferburg).