[lbo-talk] more communization!

[Carrol Cox]

Shag here provides the context in which I can explain why, on the one had, I
call Weatherman political trash, refusing to dignify them with the label
"ultra-left," and on the other hand,  attack those who on the basis of
dislike of violence dismiss  the Black Bloc. It was impossible to deal with
the Weatherman. My 11pm to 2am 'debate' with Jeff Jones began with his
attack on the local SDS for supporting the strike of the ISU workers: it
was, he said, opportunism. The core of the Weatherman existence was hot
militant tactics rally, but rather a flat denial that an American Left or an
American Working-Class Movement could exist, a labeling anyone who even
vaguely hoped for such a development "opportunist."  I've heard no one claim
that the Oakland Black Bloc denies the possibility of a working-class
movement in the U.S., nor have they attacked the legitimacy of attempts to
build such a movement. [1] Their tactics and analysis may or may not be
correct in any given situation, but those who attack them for their very
existence (as Lou Proyect has tended to do) are themselves the Weatherman of
the current left: it is they, not the Black Bloc who deny the right to exist
of any faction that does not fit their ideal picture of a U.S. Left. 

I have posted quite a few times on this list that when the next left upsurge
came it would NOT resemble either the 1930s or the 1960s, but that it would
_probably_ be closer to the latter. I also stated time after time that it
was impossible to predict how or when the next left upsurge would occur.
That is to sday, attempts to provide a general theory of what a left should
be always fail. Such attempts are merely futile, at best, reactionary at
worse, in attempting to write recipes for the tactics and organization of
the future left. It is only when such a left actually emerges and its shape
becomes roughly visible that theory becomes a crucial need: to theorize, to
identify the nature of that emergent left and to give back to that left a
image of itself. Theory follows action and makes action intelligible. We
still don't know quite enough about what is happening (not only in Oakland
but all over the U.S., evenall over the world) for our attempts at
theorizing it to be very accurate, but it is not too soon to begin that
effort. And the first premise is to take Wisconsin and the Occupations as
they are: the time for criticism is not yet. Only those who take the present
movement whole [2], abstaining from  kvetching, will be in a position to
theorize it and eventually to form the principles by which that movement can
engage either in self-criticisms or in reational polemics between various
tendencies in it. The Occupy Movment¸for now, _is_ the core of an emerging
left. Accepting its centrality is the point of defparture for any attempts
to contribute to further growth of a New American Left. 

Carrol 

[1] My early posts, like those of others, were written before we had much
actual information on what had happened in Oakland, and like others I first
responded merely to an abstract assumption that the Black Bloc was operating
on its own. This seems not to be the case. In that context, however, I did
make one general observation that may or may not be immediately relevant to
Oakland but is, abstractly, of some importance. I wrote: 

***** Angelus's last paragraph is central: that unfairness also is an
expression of _contmpt_ for those who should be regarded as comrades; it is
the other side of the con from "experts" who want the masses to follow their
advice without bickering about it. Both show contempt for workers, and both
lead to disunity. ****** 

Here is the paragraph from AN's post: 

***** Also, it's just terribly vanguardist.  Michael, after the revolution,
a tribunal is going to force you to read some Hal Draper and August Nimitz.
Black bloc dipshits are acting outside of democratic legitimacy.  It's not
fair to the people who don't want their heads staved in by police
nightsticks.*** 

The relevant sentence here: "Black bloc dipshits are acting outside of
democratic legitimacy." Shag writes below: "The author also discusses how
the major factions (commies and anarchists) within OO are, currently, being
attacked by reformists who were responsible for breaking the GA-agreed on
principles of the GS: respect for a diversity of tactics and not talking to
the media." 

In this case at least, then, it appears that the Black Bloc has NOT acted
outside of democratic legitimacy. But that general principle does hold, and
my remark, quoted above, on the contempt for workers shown by such a
violation of democratic legitimacy can be a major obstacle to the emergence
of a coherent left in the United States, which now for the first time since
the 1960s appears a serious possibility. 

[2] Mike Beggs attempts to isolate tactics from the context in which the
tactics are used. In this he emulates the Weatherman: both value tactics in
abstraction: he to condemn, Wetherman to praise. Same wrong principle.
Tactics (any conceivable tactic) can only be judged within a specific
context. 

-----Original Message----- 

From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On Behalf Of shag carpet bomb 
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 10:45 AM 
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org 
Subject: [lbo-talk] more communization! 

Interesting discussion of the use of tactical violence to further strategic
ends. In this case, the strategy is communization - which have been fleshed
out in a couple of other articles I've sent, as well as some of my
discussions of the situationists. The author also discusses how the major
factions (commies and anarchists) within OO are, currently, being attacked
by reformists who were responsible for breaking the GA-agreed on principles
of the GS: respect for a diversity of tactics and not talking to the media. 

Like the author, I'm hard pressed to understand how you can have a movement
"with teeth" if you don't make it clear to the people joining it that they
are probably going to have to be willing to give it "teeth." In this case,
there was a tactical decision made in the interest of two strategic ends: to
highlight the fact that any just social future will require the destruction
of the old and birth of the new out of that destruction. 

thus: the destruction of property was symbolic but retaliatory. It wasn't
just random, let's attack any store whatsoever, it was aimed at a Whole
Foods b/c they were threatening employees, and at three banks for obvious
reasons. I think the message is pretty clear. This movement is going to be
about getting rid of capitalism and it is going to be about creating an
alternative to it. I guess you could issue a statement in a press release
instead, no? 

The building occupation is discussed in more detail and, as far as I know,
no one here has objected to it, although it is the building occupation and
the fight afterward that was where most of the window breakage, etc.
occurred. The small business owners, etc. I believe that, in the debates on
line, there has been some complaining about that. But the context is very
different considering. People who agreed with the use of tactical violence
are mad at people who also agreed with the use of tactical violence. the
former faction just didn't like 
1. the dance party; 2. the tagging; and 3. the anger fueled mayhem after the
cops showed up at 11:30ish 

WRT to the "violence" and destruction connected with the building
occupation, it is true: if the cops had stayed away, there would have been a
big dance party while people set up a library, meeting room, and place to
house sick people. 

Zero violence would have occurred. 

But it did, because cops showed up and decided to shoot people with less
than lethal weapons, even though they were unarmed, and cops are suited up
in gear that protected them from whatever bottles were hurled. They didn't
shoot people in self defense. They didn't shoot people to restore order.
Order was just fine until they got there. Unused, foreclosed property was
being put to beneficial social uses. 

They showed up to protect the interests of property. 

<quote> If the Oakland Commune does not continue to accelerate the process
of communization, it will fall back into either pure symbolism, or assume
the counterrevolutionary form of reformism (two processes already in
progress). The building was the next logical step, and the moment taken
seemed to be the likeliest and also the safest for large numbers of people
not involved, as the cops had not been seen in numbers at any point, until
they appeared and massed up to put down the already accomplished building
occupation. Had the same events occurred during the day, the disruption to
the General Strike would have been much greater. </quote> 

more at: http://libcom.org/library/oakland-general-strike-days-days-after 
--

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm