>Riots _can_ get "results" from social democrats (Cf. Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward, _Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail_), but _that's as far as they go even in the best cases_. The LA riots didn't even achieve that much. Besides, revolutionary anarchists (who claim to be "fundamentally opposed to the state") and socialists are interested in more than moving the politicians slightly to the left in fearful response to riots, aren't we?
Riots don't necessarily get the results you might hope for though, even from social democrats. More social control measures, such as social workers etc, perhaps disguised as "assistance", is not helpful.
I haven't read that book (I will have to grovel to the bureaucrats at the library and see if I can persuade them to get it in) so I don't know what "results" Piven and Cloward are suggesting might be expected from a riot. In any case, the only way hold on to any benefits is to be organised. I think it was Sun Tsu who said that you should never ask for anything you aren't in a position to take.
The most effective form of organisation is not political, as in lobby groups, political parties and protest movements. Although politics is a crucial aspect, which anarchists neglect. What is to be done is organisation of grass roots economic organisations - co-operatives, unions and even welfare rights support groups (although that is a form of union.)
Political activism is important, because it is necessary to develop public support for economic demands. The trouble with riots, including the sort of vandalism advocated by the black bloc style activists, is that it alienates potential supporters by creating fear. It is designed to strike fear into the ruling class of course, but as someone pointed out - they are insured and have private armies to protect them. So riots inspire greater fear among ordinary people, thus doing the exact opposite of what is needed, creating the climate where the ruling class can use even more oppressive measures without any public backlash. In fact the public will even clamour for repression.
So its counter-productive. Instead, the strategy must be to develop wide public support for the activist organisation. Even if that isn't active support, it can be very valuable.
I can cite many examples, but from my own experience I recall many years ago when the local Unemployed Workers Union that I was involved in opened a tiny little shop to sell wholefoods, after a couple of years of having regular street stalls selling little packets of nuts and dried fruit to raise funds. Of course we didn't bother to seek council approval for the shop, but the council simply ignored us. As the years went by, the shop got bigger and eventually came to dominate the marketing niche in the city. We continued to ignore all local and state planning regulations. We didn't register the shop, we simply tolerated the local health inspectors, who every once in a while would come around as a result of some complaint (probably made by competitors).
They knew we had wide public support, in fact our clientelle came to include many members of the wealthy elite, who got a kick out of shopping at the unemployed workers union and telling their friends about the bargains. Of course they weren't so keen on the strident political line of the union, but they knew we weren't going to rob them in their beds either.
Meanwhile, the shop gave the union a reasonably high public profile, and made us accessible in a way people could relate to. Anyone could walk in and have a look around and get into a friendly argument with us, or browse some literature. This made it difficult to attack us in the normal ways, though the authorities did find a couple of ways eventually.
Unforunately our political work wasn't all that sophisticated, we made mistakes and often didn't recognise opportunities. The most successful attack came from and obvious quarter, but on a pretext and in a way we hadn't been expecting. It was also aided by an ambitious social worker we had been working with and supporting (you can't trust those types) who concocted a fanciful story about the union being a front for massive welfare fraud.
The welfare authorities, who we had ceaselessly persecuted for years, gleefully sent in a big team of Federal cops and tax agents to raid us and take away most of our equipment and business records. We had to get a court order just to get copies of our records back so we could keep the business running, it created chaos. But the most serious damage was the public suspicion it caused, I have to admit it was a clever tactic.
If we'd been a bit more careful, if we'd bothered to incorporate the organisation and had publically accountable business records and audits etc, it wouldn't have worked. But our anarchist spirit meant we wouldn't dream of doing any such thing. Too much like selling out to the state of course. It didn't occur to us that there's another side to it, that of making yourself publically accountable, in order to secure our most important asset - public support.
Oh well, you live and learn. But public support is extremely important, without it any reasonably successful anti-establishment mobilisation is going to be vulnerable to counter-attack by its powerful enemies. The only defense is not having any organisation at all, but without organisation noting can be achieved and even if gains could be made, they can be taken away at any time. Any tactic which undermines the achievement of enough public support to at least protect against vicious repression by the ruling class is completely counter-productive. Obviously that includes riots and furtive property destruction, unless you can honestly say that such actions will not alienate the public.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas