> But I do know what your strategic aim is, the question is, do you? It is
> to further radicalise those people attending these protests. By
> provoking confrontation with authorities.
That's not the objective in this case. That is a minor goal at many protests, but if people think that tactics like the black bloc are just about radicalizing other protesters or confronting authorities, then they are only seeing part of the picture. Tactics like the black bloc also set out to build group solidarity, provide protection from the police when we take to the streets without permits, serve as a visible example promoting our ideas, and get some media attention. It should also be pointed out the people who participate in black blocs, for example, do so for different reasons.
> I'm neither a liberal, a pacifist or a nazi. I entirely support you
> objective of further radicalising liberal protestors, I simply think
> reinforcing the hand of the authorities in their capacity to use force
> is an acceptable price to pay.
Well, yes, that is one way to look at it. Speaking for myself, that goal would have been more important 5 or 6 years ago. The police have become adept at making themselves look like fools. The DC police department thought they were so good at policing the local anti-capitalists, yet two years after our People's Strike, the police are still getting egg ont heir faces for their stupid actions on that day.
>> This paragraph sounds like it was copied verbatim from the arguments
>> they use.
>
>
> I arrived at that conclusion independently. Strategic non-violence is a
> very sensible strategy when faced with opposition from people who have
> the advantage of an overwhelming superiority of force. It only works
> when their power hinges to a large extent on the consent of a population
> who will withdraw that consent if they believe the force is being
> exercised immorally, but in those circumstances it is a valid strategy.
> Certainly more valid than skulking around like a thief in the night
> causing petty inconvenience.
Sorry. We are actually more on the same wavelength here than you might think. If you've read my e-mails about the planning for the September 2001 protests, you may recall that several of us in DC set up an affinity group to organize a direct action takeover of the hospital as a black bloc action. We decided to go in this direction because the events in Genoa that summer changed the equation. I saw this strategy as a checkmate move against the DC police, because we correctly forecast that they would put a big effort into creating alarm over the black bloc and radical protesters. The police would have looked like fools, after spending nillions of dollars on a black bloc that ended up nonviolently occupying a hospital. We would have won support from the community and put lots of international pressure on the city that was instituting neoliberal privatization of basic city services. Our actions would have embarassed the police, yet tied together the anti-globalization protests of the World Bank/IMF with local aspects of neoliberalism.
See, I understand strategy. I just don't like to reveal my hand.
And it didn't help us that a bunch of idiots had to skyjack several airplanes on September 11.
> You want sympathy? Then you have to make it look like they initiated the
> violence without any proper cause.
Right. That's not difficult here in the U.S., because the cops initiate violence against any type of protester.
> In what sense do you mean "successful"? Perhaps you're aims are too
> limited?
I guess it depends. I always measure the tactics I use and advocate against my long term strategy.
> You see, the problem is that you might very well achieve success at the
> tactical level, that is achieve your tactical aim, but only undermine
> your strategic objectives. Take for example the US invasion of Iraq,
> entirely successful on the tactical level - Saddam Hussein's government
> overthrown, Iraqi military completely crushed, new puppet government
> installed. Unfortunately, it has only undermined the overall strategic
> objective - full-spectrum US world dominance.
Sure.
> That's what happens when you get carried away with your capacity to
> achieve tactical success, without properly evaluating the strategic
> implications of your tactics.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
Right. I'd say that the anti-globalization movement here in the U.S. isn't very good in the strategy department. This has been very frustrating for me personally.
Chuck0