That Louis Proyect makes it very hard for people to take him seriously doesn't mean he doesn't sometimes have a point. I don't know if the existence of a (not radical, because *radical* in my book means that you are serious about uprooting oppression, which is much rather a constructive than a destructive or disruptive task, but) *extremist* fringe will scare the powers that be sufficiently for them to legislate meaningful reforms. It may or may not. Who knows what a scared beast will do under pressure, and what good does it do to have extremist undermining your efforts. And, of course, reforms are not necessarily a bad thing, and of course this doesn't mean that people may behave as an extremist in one context and contribute to building a movement on the other. But it seems to me that what truly works for us (the 99%) is -- well -- *unity* and *organization* and -- yes -- *collective discipline*. That is the robust approach, I believe, to cope with all sorts of circumstances that will demand tactical flexibility and all that.
If you want to think of it that way, it is about well-understood respect and camaraderie. Camaraderie doesn't mean that I "respect" your views to the point where I don't engage with them seriously. To paraphrase Rosa Luxemburg -- yeah, we Marxists argue, because we are trying to persuade people, to tell them what to do, what is best for them. If you have a strong belief about how things should be done, then you want others to believe it too. If you think I'm wrong, then show me I'm wrong, persuade me that I'm wrong, but don't ask me to say that avoid the engagement if our views are at odds.
This "diversity of tactics" fetish is that, a fetish. It's basically saying that we are so afraid about engaging with one another's tactical ideas on serious grounds, without people storming out of a meeting or yell at each other, that we better agree to disagree. Each of us can and should do whatever the f- one wants to do, and hope that the outcome will be the best for everyone involved. Hm, no. That is not very serious.
I'm not saying that sometimes that's not all we can accomplish, a pseudo- or semi-coordinated lack of coordination. Like an armistice disguised as the utmost manifestation of civility. It is turning necessity into virtue to praise it as a superior meta-tactical stance, when all it is is the lack of unity and organization and, yes, discipline. It's a cope out, like -- with all due respect -- a good deal of what David Graeber says in his piece.
"Black bloc is not a group, it's a tactic, etc." Well, if it's a tactic where a small fringe, a relatively random collection of self-styled individuals (no matter how important those people may have been or be in the organization of a mass movement) make tactical decisions that not very indirectly impose a fait accompli upon a broader movement, then that f-ing tactic *is* the problem and since tactics don't implement themselves, but particular individuals implement them, then the people who follow that tactic (which, for convenience or simplicity, we will call the black bloc) are not helping, or at least not helping as much as they could help. The tactic of "confronting the police" through random individual or small-group actions detached (and, apparently, often, at odds with, if you see the videos, in which some people tried to keep the black blocs from their disruptive actions) from the general approach of the mass movement is counterproductive.
Graeber says, but don't try to impose your tactical code of conduct on others, because that will only lead them to do more "militant" actions, etc. Militant? Really? Well, we have a different notion of what being militant means, obviously. Building socialism is what militancy is about. And for that, yes, you have to disrupt and overthrow existing social structures, which is going to make a splash and affect some people. Indeed, but your militancy is not measured by how big splash you make, how much you upset people with your behavior, how many windows you break, but by how much you advance towards reorganizing social life. The root of all evil is optimizing the wrong objective function, as some computer guy or mathematician once said.
Graeber's argument sounds to me like (and the anarchists will hate my metaphor) a teenage daughter threatening her parents: "Do not even try a curfew on me or ask me to do my room or my homework, because then you're going to push me to do heroic drugs and move with my boyfriend tomorrow." Well, missy, we have a family here. We need to pull together or else we're not really functioning a family. (Wish family and political issues were as easy as typing things here.)
A couple of points about the Hedges-Graeber clash:
First, Graeber is absolutely correct in saying that the movement must avoid getting sidetracked into apologizing for or condemning extremists infiltrating its ranks (let alone turning them to the cops). Yes, as Graeber suggests, the violence that the status quo excretes is by far the worst, and extremism itself, superficial or infantile "radicalism" (in fact, extremism) is one of the symptoms or manifestations of a social order that sucks. (I'm not saying this refutes Hedges, because -- for the life of me -- I haven't had a chance to read his piece.)
And, second, using the word "cancer" to refer to the black bloc, as CB noted, is a terrible choice of words. (I haven't read Hedges' piece, but I did read the title. Very unfortunate.)
I can't edit.