> This is certainly better than calling it a fetish, but
> where you see individualism and resort to the market,
> I see methodological anarchism. The point being that
> when we collectively confront a problem and attempt
> to understand it and solve it, even what best action or
> remedy is applicable is not something that can be
> settled purely through argumentation. Especially since
> there is not one single type of action that works. We
> try different approaches to the problem learning as we
> go. Sure, some lines of action can be shelved a priori
> because they [to some degree of satisfaction]
> demonstrably aid the enemy and harm the collective. It
> has been argued that “black bloc tactics” are one such.
> Fine, perhaps they are. I do not know. But that in itself
> is not an argument against the idea of diversity of
> tactics.
When people disposed to more "militant" (wrong term!) actions systematically bring their views to the assemblies, make their tactical case, and then *submit* to the collective decisions, whatever they may be, then we don't have "methodological anarchism," but -- well -- some form of democracy. We are talking about organization, coordination of actions, etc. Thus, I don't care if the people involved in the initial phase of the organization of OWS were self-declared anarchists (e.g. Graeber). More power to them for doing that kind of work. As far as I'm concerned, their work was democratic in the most profound sense of the term. And, of course, it is entirely possible for a collective to say -- let's split labor, try "good-cop, bad-cop," then compile observations and study them together. But that is *not* the case here.
If you read Graeber's open letter to Hedges, you'll see that the premise is precisely that this process does not take place beforehand or is not carried out to conclusion. Instead, what happens is that some people refuse to process their views through mechanism of collective decision making, they withdraw in the middle, or fail to subordinate to the collective decisions, and then go and do their thing -- accountable to themselves and themselves alone, under the umbrella of broader protests and actions by people who have no say in their individual or small group decisions. And the broader movement has to accept this fait accompli under the implicit or explicit threat, which Graeber does not reject, that if these people are not left alone, then they will be inclined to do even crazier crap. The "diversity of tactics" phrase is just the rationalization of a de facto situation in which small groups fail to coordinate with and -- yes -- to subordinate their actions to the broader constituency of a movement.
In my (admittedly narrow) experience, say during the protests against the war or against the Republican Convention, black bloc people just showed up in the protests and exhibited a behavior that made it clear to everyone around that they were unbound by any commitment or respect to the parameters of the protest as called and planned. They didn't appear particularly comradely to people not in their groups. I don't remember consulting with anybody whether we wanted them to "confront the police" on our behalf. They were doing their thing, leaving the strong impression among other protesters that they were engaged in provocations with significant potential implications for the rest of the protest. Whatever goes on in their heads, well only they know. It is disingenuous to argue, well, other protesters and whoever else may dare criticize the black bloc are just a bunch of ignorants, because they haven't studied us enough to know that, actually, our wearing black hoodies is intended as a way to protect them, etc. We actually have good intentions, the interest of the crowd at heart, but others don't know, because they are too lazy to do research and learn what we're really up to. Etc.
I fail to see their actions as part of a deliberate process of collective experimentation, a trial-and-error learning process. And, again, I don't view the black bloc people as a cancer or the main (or one of the main) problem(s) facing the Occupy movement. It is not so.
The main problem is how to advance, how to involve broader chunks of the 99%, decide what the political priorities are with as many people as possible backing the move, how to deal with the electoral process to advance our interest rather than someone else's, etc. But it's not bad to have these arguments now and get them out of the way.