Articles
Canadian Politics, Economy and Foreign PolicyOnce more around the Bloc
tactics, democracy, and mass politics
Our democratic freedoms hang by a narrow thread, and a police state is always near at hand — that is one of the lessons of the G20 debacle that unfolded in Toronto on June 26 and 27. The federal government spent a billion dollars on security and deployed 19,500 police on the streets of downtown Toronto. Activist groups were infiltrated, and organizers were targeted for preemptive arrest. Despite the overwhelming police presence, a small number of smashed windows and burning police cars shown on constant loop by TV news were enough to persuade much of the population that police violence and the arbitrary arrest of more than 1000 people were justified.
The responsibility for this unprecedented repression lies squarely with governments and police forces. All detainees must be released and trumped up charges against activist organizers must be dropped. Those who made the decisions to suspend civil liberties must be discovered and held to account. But they did not act without a pretext. That pretext was provided by a small number of people who employed “black bloc” tactics, masking up and smashing and burning things before disappearing into crowds of peaceful protesters.
Some might argue that the tactics were a success, provoking awareness of the violent authoritarianism inherent in the capitalist state. Such claims reveal the privileged perspective of those who make them. Who, exactly, was not aware of the state’s violent authoritarianism? Young black men in the suburbs? Indigenous people? Immigrants? The poor? Those who were shocked at the police violence come largely from the privileged classes.
What has been mobilized in response is not a challenge to the system, but a defense of liberal democracy. Movements building a base for more fundamental critiques, like the Indigenous justice or environmental justice movements, have now been overshadowed by the movement to defend basic democratic freedoms. Headlines are about protest and policing, not about the sweeping cuts to social programs that will come out of the G20’s austerity agenda.
This brings us to the first problem with black bloc tactics: they do not work. There is no example of the successful use of “the propaganda of the deed” in liberal democracies. These tactics legitimate authoritarianism, which is fought by defending liberal rights. Black bloc, and similar tactics, disorganize and divide social movements and discredit radical ideas. They mire activists in legal process and court support. They serve the interests of the state, which is why liberal democracies have continually employed infiltrators and agents provocateurs to promote them within movements.
Black bloc tactics are also deeply undemocratic. Socialists and anarchists alike believe that those who are affected by a decision should have a say in making it. Black bloc tactics have a profound impact on the movements and place an additional burden of repression on those who are already most oppressed. Yet the decision to use these tactics is made by a small number of self-styled radicals without consent from the vast majority who will be affected by them. The unaccountable use of these tactics is just as authoritarian and colonial as the system they are supposed to fight.
Far from practicing accountability, those who favour these tactics have campaigned to impose on the movements the doctrine of “diversity of tactics,” which enjoins that no one shall be publicly held to account for the tactics they choose. This doctrine abandons mass organizing, collective strategy, and democracy for a kind of ultra-vanguardism in which those who use the most extreme tactics get to impose the consequences of their choice on the majority without consultation. Underpinning “diversity of tactics” is not an alternative vision of democratic collectivity, but a supremely entitled liberal individualism. That has no place in our movements.
Like police repression, the black bloc and “diversity of tactics” require nourishment to thrive. During the G20, the labour movement and NGOs provided this nourishment. Early on in the organizing, their representatives weakly acceded to the demands of “radicals” on diversity of tactics, which gave the black bloc the space they needed. The unions and NGOs were also incapable of providing ideological leadership or focus in the events they organized. The major mobilization of June 26, which saw tens of thousands on the street, was themed People First and its slogan was “We deserve better.” It had no clear demands or strategic goals, and no vision that inspired.
Like the black bloc actions, the labour march, which brought out 20,000 people, was pro forma. While vibrant, unlike the black bloc actions, it lacked any tone of militancy. Organizers caved to police demands not to approach the security fence surrounding the G20 conference centre. With tens of thousands of people on the streets, labour leaders chose a symbolic demonstration of their weakness, turning away from the fence and circling back to their starting point. This was the context that gave power to calls for militant breakaway actions to go to the fence.
Some have used the opportunity of the G20 fallout to argue that protests don’t make a difference. Subsequent mobilizations defending civil rights have certainly put the lie to that claim. Certainly, weak protests and weak leadership don’t make a difference. While the black bloc eschews mass organization and accountability, organized labour is abdicating any leadership role in political struggle. That will only change by building mass organizations inside and outside the unions that can exert pressure on them and provide ideological leadership. Only when we practice political leadership, accountability to the base, and an orientation to mass politics can our movements for radical change be strong.
entry image used under creative commons licencing original author can be found at www.flickr.com/photos/salty_soul/
This editorial betrays a deep misunderstanding of the history of the bloc tactic. The 200 or so participants in Toronto in June were a black bloc in name only. They got the aesthetic right, but not the real purpose. The raison d’etre of a bloc from the tactic’s inception and its subsequent rise to prominence during the 90’s was two-fold: to preserve anonymity among direct action marchers and thus avoid targeted arrest while countering the riot police and maintaining control of the streets. In the pre-security fence era, this control on the ground was key to protecting against the kinds of police repression that typically occurred at actions of all stripes and to disrupting business-as-usual. Black blocs de-arrested their own. Black blocs stood their ground in the face of police charges. Black blocs could force their way through or past security forces to occupy a key intersection. Black blocs fought back, literally. Property destruction was never the primary goal, although it sometimes did happen.
The territory has undoubtedly changed over the past 10 years. In the face of almost 20,000 hired thugs, 1.3 billion in spending and layers of security fencing, the bloc in Toronto didn’t have the numbers or the support to do any of these things effectively. It’s true that any facet of a movement needs nourishment to thrive.
But when you speak of ‘our movements’ you adopt the very ‘entitled liberal individualism’ you are trying to condemn. Not resisting is itself often a very privileged choice and may reflect an identity that at the end of the day can go home to relative safety. Moreover, your assertion that people who believe that wider recognition of authoritarianism is a good thing are by nature privileged is ridiculous. Those who are most threatened by a system are not only its most vocal and militant opponents, but recognize that privileged people are much more apt to support social justice when they, too, are affected on some level by repression. This is precisely the argument of the communities who took the lead on organizing during the G20 (women, people of colour, indigenous people, poor, queer and disabled people): that what we saw during the G20 is what these communities experience every day.
Although militancy must indeed happen in the context of mass support, we should also recognize that meaningful change never came about from asking nicely.
#1. Posted by Dissenter in Toronto on July 28th 2010 at 3:09pm
“The responsibility for this unprecedented repression lies squarely with governments and police forces.”
Oh no, wait a minute. That statement is too categorical. The cops had a “pretext”!
The responsibility actually lies with those who used black bloc tactics. They imposed the consequences of their tactics on the other protesters.
But wait! They were “nourished” and enabled by the labour movement and the NGO’s who had no vision, militancy, or strategic goals!
The responsibility actually lies with the organizers of the main mobilization, who demontrated their weakness by turning 20,000 people away from the security fence (instead of leading them towards it and a confrontation with police?).
And so this editorial goes around and around the block, without a compass.
Is it really such a tragedy that “what has been mobilized in response is not a challenge to the system, but a defense of liberal democracy”? Was a challenge to the system actually on the menu? If it was, it wasn’t being offered by the 20,000-strong “pro forma” labour march. It’s not as if the Revolution was ruined forever by a relative handful of nihilists.
As a response to an unprecedented display of police power and unprovoked violence, is mobilizing a defence of liberal democratic freedoms – you know, the ones that “hang by a narrow thread” – really such a downer in present-day urban Canada? Did we miss our chance for a decisive confrontation with capitalism, or at least a chance to have the corporate mass media portray the anti-G20 protests in a favourable light? Should we have T-shirts reading, “I marched against imperialism at the G20, but all I got was this lousy t-shirt, a bunch of bad press, and a defence campaign against police repression”?
“Who, exactly,” you ask, “was not aware of the state’s violent authoritarianism?” This astonishingly naive question is easily answered by the tens of thousands of people who witnessed that violent authoritarianism for the first time - some of them journalists, some of them victims of police assaults, many more of them eyewitnesses, and even more of them simply readers of alternative news media and watchers of the “viral videos” that document the violence.
It’s simply wrong to suggest that these confrontational events were an unmitigated disaster for the left. For many thousands of workers and students this was a watershed in their consciousness of the nature of the capitalist state. The positive impact of these events will be reflected in the mass movements for many years to come.
#2. Posted by Jeff White in Toronto on July 28th 2010 at 3:41pm
I’m afraid that these critical comments don’t address the central argument of this piece. Black Bloc tactics, or at least the pro forma version of Black Bloc smash it up, don’t work. They are counter-productive. The doctrine of “diversity of tactics” is just a misuse of language. In practice it is schoolyard peer pressure that prevents a proper debate over any and all tactics.
Serious long-term movements like the boycott divest sanctions movement for Palestine don’t mess around with “diversity of tactics” and they would not allow such a liberal, laissez faire attitude to carry on.
#3. Posted by Chrissie on July 28th 2010 at 10:25pm
I kinda thought boycotting, divestment, and sanctions were the very epitome of a diversity of tactics!
But to pursue your point further, how would Black Bloc tactics be applied to the BDS campaign anyway?
If somebody dressed in black and took a baseball bat to a shipment of Israeli oranges sitting in crates on a dock, waiting for transport to Canada, would you call that counter-productive? I sure wouldn’t.
#4. Posted by Jeff White in Toronto on July 29th 2010 at 12:51am
What I mean is that CAIA and other groups would not tolerate individuals or tiny “affinity groups” showing up at a mass demo or a Chapters picket and just smashing stuff up, distracting for the decided upon action. In other words, there is collective responsibility and discipline in the Palestine solidarity movement.
#5. Posted by Chrissie on July 29th 2010 at 2:29am
The problem with this article is rather simple: the black bloc have been infiltrated and run by police since Seatle in the late 90’s.
#6. Posted by Ryamos Suandables in Ottawa on July 29th 2010 at 7:51am
Discipline is a good thing - it will hopefully come in time. But by discipline i mean discipline within the Black Bloc, not from without.
The Black Bloc is a worthwhile cultural/political intervention, developing a capacity to act, even when this violates the limits that the State (or self-appointed movement leaders) wish to place on protest.
The conflation of the Black Bloc with “propaganda of the deed” is ridiculous - the latter was the term used to refer to anarchist assassinations in the early 19th century, not broken windows! But leaving aside that preposterous exaggeration, it is misleading and betrays either dishonesty or a gross ignorance of the history of social change on this continent to claim that “There is no example of the successful use of “the propaganda of the deed” in liberal democracies.” Almost every single successful movement for social change has included tendencies that have engaged in illegal, often violent, tactics. It is difficult to unravel all the factors in a movement, to determine what was “productive” and what was “unproductive”, but this blithe dismissal just boggles the mind.
The juxtaposition - in the comments section - of Black Bloc tactics with demonstrations organized by other groups which “would not tolerate” direct action is disingenuous. Most people who engage in everyday organizing are not and never have been members of the Black Bloc - but the reverse is not true. Many who “blocked up” at the G20 are routinely involved in the same kind of everyday organizing, legal and aboveground, as the rest of us. The person who made that comment is ignoring the fact that where and when a Bloc appears is a tactical and strategic decision, and despite the amorphous nature of the Bloc, it’s one that is often made with some sophistication and sensitivity to context.
The real difference we have is that there are two visions of what a movement needs to be able to do, and this stems from two different appraisals of where social and political conditions are heading, and what we’ll require in the years ahead. We’re starting from a position of weakness and disorganization, but many of us believe that our movement’s being able to field some kind of streetforce (indifferent to legality, capable of engaging in some basic tactics) will be necessary at times. Won’t be the only thing necessary, but will be one component of what we’ll need. Indeed, being able to field such a force has already been necessary at times over the past decades - for instance, during the 90s antifascist struggle in Toronto, to give just one example.
Am running out of space, but you can check out a longer piece on this subject at
http://sketchythoughts.blogspot.com/2010/07/g20-theories-debates-and-slander.html
#7. Posted by kersplebedeb in Montreal on July 29th 2010 at 8:18am
There’s three distinct issues, here:
(1) Is “Diversity of Tactics” helpful to building militant and effective popular movements?
(2) Are black bloc tactics effective, in general?
(3) Is the strategy upon which black bloc activists (setting aside police members that may have participated, for different reasons) acted at G20 T.O. a plausible strategy for advancing the anti-capitalist movement?
I’m only going to say something about (1):
“Diversity of tactics,” for those new to this debate, does not mean tactical diversity. Instead, it is the proposal to enforce a taboo against voicing public criticisms of the tactical use of property-destruction during mass demonstrations. Why would anyone favour that? Because they believe that such criticism distinguishes between “good” and “bad” movement-building tactics, and they believe that it is inappropriate to make that distinction. Arguably, this is often disingenuous, because many DoT advocates think it is OK to distinguish “good” and “bad” tactics when someone like Buzz Hargrove (then CAW pres.) endorsed Paul Martin’s Liberal Party, or when the U.S. Sierra Club considered coming out with an anti-immigrant policy for addressing sustainability issues. These, they admit, were “bad” tactics. But, consistent or not, that is the argument they give: that tactics cannot be divided into “good” and “bad.”
Now, in my view, this is a wildly implausible suggestion. It seems to me that it is just a plain fact that some tactics are more likely to contribute to building strong, militant, mass movements, given a particular context, while other tactics are less likely to do so. Therefore, the first set of tactics (the effective ones) are “good,” whereas the second set (the ineffective ones) are “bad.” To the extent that DoT enforces a taboo against collective discussion and decision-making about which tactics fall into which category, I believe that it is an obstacle to building strong movements. I also think this is obviously true, which is why so many people believe that DoT advocates are really just trying to position themselves (or people in their social circle) as “above criticism” within the activist Left.
Perhaps these sound like “ad hominem” criticisms. I don’t mean them that way. I am trying to make a purely political argument that we need to frame the question of whether to embrace DoT as a question of movement-building strategy, and we need a frankly honest discussion of how DoT might help or hinder the movement-building project of the anti-capitalist Left. I have tried to be clear about why I (and others) are skeptical of its value in that regard. Maybe someone has a strong counter-argument. Anyone?
#8. Posted by S D'Arcy in Ontario on July 29th 2010 at 10:43am
it is not the black blocs fault that the mainstream media ignored the 40 000 demonstrators that were in toronto during the week of the g20 convergence. it is not the black blocs fault that the mainstream media only showed the breakaway march of 1000 that went to actually confront the state, capitalism, and more.
the labour march did not even symbolically confront the state, and speak about a tactic prone to infiltration, i saw at least 50 plains clothes cops walking in the big marches of the convergence, with the alt media centre harassing them. at most maybe the cops had two affinity groups in the black bloc, so max 12 out of 200 (the break off was 100, of which around 200 where of the black bloc). and if we wish to speak more of infiltration, i do believe that capitalist and state forces infiltrated the labour movement a long time ago…
I point now to No One Is Illegal’s Harsha Wailia discussing Diversity of Tactics and the black bloc with the ultra-prived Derrick O’Keefe.
http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/video/2916
at one point Harsha challenges folks to not speak for her or other targeted communities when speaking of the impacts of a black bloc action. it is a good point, i think the folks that were organizing the convergence, folks who are doing this work for free and are in the streets everyday, actually building alternatives (like the targeted “conspirators’ who are being blamed for the bloc actions), should be the ones to speak of what the impacts are on their communities.
getting back to infiltrators. unlike the labour movement where infiltrators/collaborators are found at times at the top, directing plans, in a black bloc they are more likely to be dishwashers and drivers - not the strategic planning type of participants. the few cops that got to volunteer for bloc duty did not need to be there for sex shops and starbucks to get smashed. Banks like TD or RBC fund canadian mining companies who destroy ecosystems (human cultures included) to sell shiny rocks to stupid people - fuck jewellery stores, independent ones share the same responsibilities and the same system. and the cop volunteers were there to smash shit just like the hockey fans in montreal after a win (or a loss) - some people do just like expressing themselves by a good old fashioned ‘smashy smashy’
the cops and the black bloc had the same short term goal on the 26th, short term disruption of normal. cops used the disruption of normal to beat up demonstrators who they knew would not defend themselves, the bloc used this space to show the world that the youth in canada is rising and taking responsibility for the destructive heartlessness of our parents generation and an unjust history of state capitalism and genocidal colonialism, by smashing the facade of clean capitalism and fighting the goons of the state.
#9. Posted by dan kellar in waterloo on July 29th 2010 at 11:55am
@ S. Darcy, and on the subject of Diversity of Tactics:
(keeping in mind that holding a position is different from refusing debate)
is this really what goes on? have you been involved in organizing things, and you’ve wanted to hold a “family friendly” event, and people have not only refused to respect this but refused to debate you because of some dogma about “diversity”?
i have seen a lot of complaint about “diversity of tactics” being used as a slogan to shut down debate, but i wonder how honest it is, if it’s based on people’s real experiences or just some convenient left urban legend.
In the various defenses of the Black Bloc and militant action that i see online and hear in my day-to-day life, nobody refers to DoT as a reason to not debate the BB. As you can see from this discussion thread, the various responses criticizing the editorial from the left are all arguing based on the legitimacy and usefulness of violence in protests - you can agree or disagree with us, but none of us are saying “we won’t debate because we believe in diversity.”
Similarly, Harsha Walia’s excellent defense of the BB during the anti-Olympics actions in Vancouver earlier this year (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oesjegD1-Vg and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BuPK81aWks and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIXEmeTRdUQ) did not include a shutting down of people on the basis that debate was now allowed.
Again, holding an opinion, even defending it forcefully, is not the same as refusing to engage in debate. Please provide links to documents or statements subscribing to this position.
The term “diversity of tactics” is itself unfortunate, as it lends itself to this kind of misunderstanding, but it should be obvious to people who have been paying attention that DoT is itself a tactic, one that is constantly being debated and negotiated by various sections of the far left. That so many BB people regularly show up at other demos without “blocking up” is a sign there is a desire to tailor one’s actions to particular contexts, and an awareness that a tactic that makes sense on Bay street during the G20 may not make sense at another event in another community.
That said, responsibility for this term does not lie with the militants alone. It is also a face-saving fig leaf for those who disagree with illegal tactics but who recognize that to expel these people from the left would mean expelling some of the most hard-working and dynamic organizers in many (tho not all) communities.
#10. Posted by kersplebedeb in Montreal on July 29th 2010 at 12:10pm
Hello kersplebedeb,
I characterized DoT as “the proposal to enforce a taboo against voicing public criticisms of the tactical use of property-destruction [by small groups] during mass demonstrations.”
Do you think that this mis-states the meaning of DoT? If so, how would you define it? I think that it is precisely this proposal that people who don’t like DoT are complaining about. (A few people people have a moral view about “non-violence,” and regard property-damage of the b.b. type as “violence,” but most activists are objecting on strategic rather than moral grounds).
And let me ask (anyone) this question: Is it consistent with DoT to publicly condemn the black bloc for choosing ineffective tactics and thereby undermining the radical Left?
If the answer is ‘Yes, that would be consistent with DoT,” then maybe we’re just talking past each other on this issue, and our real difference lies elsewhere (namely, in the area of anti-capitalist revolutionary strategy in a non-revolutionary period).
#11. Posted by S D'Arcy in Ontario on July 29th 2010 at 12:45pm
@ S D’Arcy: not that i am Lenin or any other kind of authority, but…
as i understand it, Yes, that would be consistent with DoT
Which is not to say that it cannot be judged as opportune or inopportune based on many other factors (just as the BB itself can be).
For instance, i found the way certain social democrats and socialists denounced the BB while the police were still arresting people and the media was spreading it’s rubbish to be not only shameful, but a real missed opportunity to exploit the BB’s symbolic property damage to talk about substantive issues (i.e. why do we care more about windows than people? why is it that “ordinary people” in Toronto were so eager to join in trashing cop cars? if the police are going to be so violent, doesn’t that mean we need a bigger BB, not less of one?). The fact that many of these folks also feinted to the right, taking up Alex Jones’ conspiracy theories about the Block being an encapsulated gang, was just icing on the cake.
Plus - not on the grounds of DoT, but on the grounds of movement building - we have to differentiate between “publicly condemning” in the mainstream media, and debating in our own press and our own spaces, real and virtual. By the same token, my criticizing various Trotskyists on my blog is one thing, but i wouldn’t go writing an op ed for the National Post slamming them. Just common sense, politics 101.
But that is based on questions of strategy and solidarity. Definitely such discussions should and <em>are</am> taking place slightly less in the public eye, and nobody (so far as i know) is shutting them down on the basis of DoT.
Which is not to say that we’re not all defending our various positions.
But yeah, i think the whole “they are using ‘diversity of tactics’ to shut down debate” is a bit of an internet urban legend, perhaps resulting from certain people’s sour grapes that they failed to win the debate, so now they’re pretending there hasn’t been one. A strawman.
#12. Posted by kersplebedeb in Montreal on July 29th 2010 at 1:23pm
If DOT means no public criticism of tactics, then it’s clearly been a colossal failure, in view of the endless debates on tactics!
S D’Arcy asks: “Is it consistent with DoT to publicly condemn the black bloc for choosing ineffective tactics and thereby undermining the radical Left?”
It’s just as consistent as publicly condemning the labour movement and the Toronto Community Mobilization Network for choosing ineffective tactics and thereby failing to appeal to the majority of the population or gain exposure in the corporate mass media.
And yet this valid criticism, curiously, has not been made by supporters of the black bloc, at least in public.
#13. Posted by Jeff White in Toronto on July 29th 2010 at 2:40pm
Kersplebedeb asks: “Again, holding an opinion, even defending it forcefully, is not the same as refusing to engage in debate. Please provide links to documents or statements subscribing to this position.”
One of the four “St. Paul Principles,” which are widely seen by DoT advocates as an authoritative statement, reads as follows:
“3. [A]ny debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any
public or media denunciations of fellow activists and events.”
(source: http://midatlanticua.wordpress.com/st-paul-principals/ )
I have heard DoT advocates claim that critical discussions of other people’s tactics on “Facebook” violate the spirit of DoT. So, it doesn’t seem that by “public” they necessarily mean “in corporate media outlets.” They seem to mean that debate should only take place out of public view, in private. But that amounts to rejecting public discussion of tactical criticisms (e.g., on the Canadian Dimension web site). I believe that the conversation happening on this page violates the “St. Paul Principles,” to the extent that some people have criticized the black bloc at G20 Toronto, suggesting that they deployed “bad” tactics as opposed to “good” tactics for building the movement, which almost all DoT advocates say we shouldn’t do.
But that’s why I reject those principles (at least principle #3; I agree with #2 and #4, and #1 is too vague to assess as it is stated there). Personally, I think this kind of critical discussion of tactics and strategy—in the editorial above, and in the comments—is very positive, and every radical activist ought to welcome it. (Maybe I’ll change my mind when the inevitable happens and someone calls me a “champagne liberal.”)
#14. Posted by S D'Arcy in Ontario on July 29th 2010 at 5:51pm
@S. D’Arcy: this is interesting; the initial St Paul Principles were developed in 2008 and seem to be directed at airing movement debates in corporate media, but i can see that they could be open to various interpretations. While i am always loathe to judge without seeing the actual exchange/context, using this to shutdown debate on FB or on this site would strike me as unfortunate, and - as these principles were agreed upon in relation to one specific set of protests (against the RNC) - unwarranted.
However, this is a living tradition, and as evidence of how most people in the movement would interpret them, see how point #2 morphed for the Toronto G20:
2. We realize that debates and honest criticisms are necessary for political clarification and growth in our movements. But we also realize that our detractors will work to divide us by inflaming and magnifying our tactical, strategic, personal and political disagreements. For the purposes of political clarity, and mutual respect, we will speak to our own political motivations and tactical choices and allow other groups and individuals to speak on their own behalf. We reject all forms of violence-baiting, red-baiting and fear-mongering; and efforts to foster unnecessary divisions among our movements; ( http://g20.torontomobilize.org/SolidarityRespect )
It would seem that everyone is on the same page about debate being allowed, as long as it occurs in good faith. Again, i welcome any links or references to specific claims that because of DoT (or anything else) these issues should not be debated. i myself feel the timing and place of some of the anti-BB criticisms has been bad, but not as bad as the content of the criticisms themselves.
And as one can see from this thread, those of us who have criticized the CD editorial have done so because we disagree with it, not because we feel it has violated a code of silence. While i am sorry the editors see things this way, i am glad for the opportunity to discuss this. i don’t think anybody has tried to shut down this discussion.
#15. Posted by kersplebedeb in Montreal on July 29th 2010 at 9:51pm
Ok so what were the objective results of the BB at the G20 in Toronto, that is how you measure the usefullness of a tactic or strategy. Was it the arrests the next day? I don’t think so, that would have happened anyway as far as I am concerned and if the BB did not appear the cops would have done it for them, just to provide that pretext and just like they have done forever. So why is the Blac Block doing the job of the police? Exactly who side are you on anyway, again never mind your subjective understanding of whatever it is you think you understand, but results. If you want to build a movement to take on capitalism I would suggest we start organizing another days of action and a general strike. This will involve a large group of people who will have their consciousness changed in the process. They will learn all about state repression without breaking a window like so many already have out on the picket line. If people know that a group is going to break off to smash a few windows you can bloody well forget it it is juvenile and rediculous. Learning how to resist, how to deal with gas etc are all valuable things we teach in workshops before the demo-lawyers to contact if arrested etc, if the police get to pushy and people defend themselves well so be it-self defence is a basic human right. No class ever gained political power without having first gained supremacy economically-that is the very difficult task of the working class, I think they are up to it and we will find out before Harper ends another 4 years-the unacceptable policies have already been passed. The deals are being brokered behind closed doors now-with the Rothchilds and the Goldman’s and the BP and even other government run crown corporations will be coming in and buying up ours-how is that for irony or surealism or how far out can you go anyway.
RR
#16. Posted by Rocky Racoon on July 30th 2010 at 10:55pm
I’m afraid the emphasis of this article is completely inverted. Instead of focusing on black bloc street tactics the left needs to be discussing what we can do to build a real militant mass movement that is strongly rooted in the working class. It may be easier to attack the black bloc tactics and property destruction, but it depressing to hear a left publication like CD suggest that the black bloc’s actions are the cause of the left’s collective failures instead of a symptom of them. Only at the very end of the editorial is the real question of how to respond to the G-20’s planned austerity measures even mentioned.
Using the black bloc as proverbial whipping-boy for the left prevents an honest self-critical look at why the left has failed to build a militant mass movement that’s independent of bourgeois political parties and conservative union bureaucracies.
This is not to say that any actions are above criticism, but rather that criticism of militant street tactics should be done in the context of a broader discussion of the left’s shortfalls are and what politics, strategy, and tactics we need in the ongoing and upcoming attacks on the working class.
In short, as socialists and anarchists we need to take responsibility for the hard work of building and radicalizing genuine militant mass movements capable of challenging the power and logic of the capitalist class. That’s a lot harder to do than criticizing the black bloc, but it is essential if we want to fight to win in the struggle against the so-called “austerity measures” aimed at plunging the international working class into even more precarious work and poverty while dismantling and selling off what remains of an already thread-bare public infrastructure and social safety net.
Is the left capable of rising to the challenge that today’s conditions demand of us? Or are we already looking for scapegoats to blame for defeats we see as inevitable? The choice is ours.
#17. Posted by Mick Sweetman in Toronto on August 1st 2010 at 11:31am
Mick,
Have you (for example) watched the video of the Harsha Walia and D. O’Keefe debate, including the part where the big cheer went up when an audience member called for the embrace of a politics that would make the city of Vancouver “burn, baby, burn”?
It is true that we shouldn’t all obsess about the black bloc per se. But the bloc tactic’s appeal to a significant minority of the anti-capitalist Left is rooted in a particular analysis, and a strategy that flows from it. If the anti-capitalist Left doesn’t subject that analysis and strategy to critical scrutiny, in order to win over those influenced by it to a less ‘substitutionist’ and elitist, more grassroots and bottom-up type of strategy, then wouldn’t that itself be a collective failure?
Let’s be honest. We have seen this set of politics before, many times: the moralistic views about the “duty” of revolutionaries to “put their bodies on the line,” admiration of the “courage” of people who do, contempt for the “champagne liberals” who are “all talk” about revolution, scorn for the “fat, greedy workers,” the consumeristic “sheep” with their SUVs and Florida vacations, a Romantic type of identification with armed struggles in far-off places, and so on. There is a certain psychology to it, of course. But mainly it is a strategic analysis about the present social context and how to advance an anti-capitalist struggle within that context. And it is deeply wrong-headed.
We know well the impasse into which this analytical/strategic wrong turn leads. For this reason, we have an obligation to argue with those influenced by this kind of strategic analysis, precisely because we take them seriously as fellow activists who can be won over to a more plausible revolutionary strategy. Otherwise, we’re just writing them off permanently or pretending that they don’t have a political strategy that can be assessed on its merits. We ought to take them more seriously than that.
If I were to criticize the editorial, I’d object to the fact that it doesn’t really try to engage with the anti-capitalist activists who are drawn to that flawed strategy. There is a lack of “patient explaining,” as opposed to polemical debating, with the people who need to hear a critical anti-capitalist perspective on their own analytical/strategic assumptions.
At the other extreme, some people/organizations on the far Left have chosen to hold off from making criticisms of any kind on the grounds that this sector of the Left is central to much of the best activism today. But that kind of patronizing attitude is really a slap in their face.
#18. Posted by S D'Arcy in Ontario on August 1st 2010 at 12:45pm
The Diversity of Tactics principle of being careful of what you say in the media any media at all, has to do with the criminalization of dissent.
Some people are part of criminalized communities, thus are more vulnerable to state repression than those whose actions are inline with, and even supported by the state. i.e. an anarchist calling out a union boss as a sell out, vs. NGO bureaucrat posting a reward for someone who sabotaged logging machinery.
Also, when public denouncements happen and people are in jail, or arrests can be made, these public denouncements can go a long way in prejudicing the court against people facing charges. When people are villainized in the media, it’s easier for judges to come down harsh on people.
In political cases, while not every judge will sympathize at all, many judges will see that the defendant is good at heart, or well intentioned but misdirected and sentence the person accordingly. When there are ‘upstanding community leaders’ grandstanding in the media about how horrible these bad protesters are, the likelihood of that sympathetic scenario is seriously reduced.
Another important aspect of debate is that it should happen mostly in person, and only supplementary online. Online communication can be informative, but does not lead to a sense of community in the way that real world interaction can. In person communication is about security culture -but further, it’s about protecting our communities by encouraging interpersonal relationship building which adds to strong alliances in diverse movements.
A success in this way can be seen in post action after care after the no2010 Convergence in Vancouver which was a definite result of ongoing efforts in Vancouver city and Indigenous communities, smaller towns and rural areas in B.C. to nurture relationships between overlapping communities.
In Vancouver, after the anti-Olympics Direct Action March, there was a lot of debate, and much of it happened online, but also, various groups in the city opened up their space for meetings and social gatherings where people could talk face to face. Also, there was the tent city, where many people involved in anti-olympics organizing where able to work collectively on a project despite differences- which allowed people to increase points of unity. Also, it allowed an ongoing informal debate to continue outside of any public sphere- that critically assessed actions during the Heart Attack Demo and lead to learning and growth.
The success of Diversity of Tactics doesn’t just rely on adherence to a set of rules, but on people taking proactive measures to ensure that there is opportunity for productive debate and community building to occur.
#19. Posted by bineshii on August 13th 2010 at 12:32pm
The main problem is the decades of “business unionism” of the trade union leadership in Canada (and the USA.)
At best (?) they are social democrats with no political action plan other than supporting the NDP.
At worst they are class collaborators who have no analysis of capitalism and believe that capitalism can be managed for the benefit of workers.
There is very little if any organized fight back with a political economic context which leads workers to a dead end of strikes which end in major concessions.
We are seeing this in the past few years in Windsor, Toronto, Sudbury and elsewhere.
It remains to be seen what response to the Ontario governments “wage freeze” by organized labour will be.
#20. Posted by Ted on August 30th 2010 at 6:53pm
Some Marxists seem to be under the impression that if it weren’t for the black bloc, the corporate media would have trumpeted protesters’ anti-capitalist message to the public, which, inspired by the party line, would have then organized itself into a union-led mass movement and shortly overthrown the system in a revolutionary general strike. And since all of this would be done peacefully, no-one would face repression and the thugs of the ruling elite would simply disappear. Excuse me if I don’t find this strategic scenario very plausible.
Now, if you start from the assumption that the goal of the black bloc is to make anarchists look warm and fuzzy to liberals and apolitical people, yes, you’re going to judge it an absolute failure. Wrong assumption, though. I’m not saying anarchists should never be warm and fuzzy, but G20 summits are not the time and place. Some things black blocs ARE intended to do: disrupt business as usual, send a warning to the ruling classes that militant hatred towards them exists and is ready to ACT NOW, make banks and businesses regret hosting the G20 in their city, take revenge against them and make them pay for all their bullshit, make managers squirm and fear that their corporation might be the next target, show and PROVE IN ACTION a total contempt for bourgeois legality, private property, and the infrastructures of power, hone street fighting abilities and become psychologically and physically prepared for the insurrections that will be necessary to fight the system, set an example for others that power can be attacked, vent rage at the police and the capitalists . . . etc. By these standards, black blocs have been pretty successful.
#21. Posted by Marvy on September 14th 2010 at 7:58pm
“Some Marxists seem to be under the impression that if it weren’t for the black bloc, the corporate media would have trumpeted protesters’ anti-capitalist message to the public, which, inspired by the party line, would have then organized itself into a union-led mass movement and shortly overthrown the system in a revolutionary general strike. And since all of this would be done peacefully, no-one would face repression and the thugs of the ruling elite would simply disappear. Excuse me if I don’t find this strategic scenario very plausible.”
These must be very disorientated Marxists or a very poor characterization. Any ostensible Marxists I have ever spoken with know that the state would intervene long before an imminent threat arose-which is precisely why Marxist contend that it is only through revolution that change can take place. It is in the getting to that pre-revolutionay stage that is important. What formations take place. What organs of power emerge to meet the needs of the people during such times. This is precisely why you do not what to alienate the majority of the population right out of the gate and why needless destruction is frowned upon.
RR
#22. Posted by Rocky Racoon on September 15th 2010 at 4:12am
Well, I was being a bit facetious, because in fact I think the vague talk about “formations” and “organs of power” and how we’re just “out of the gate” and how we’re not in a “revolutionary situation” (or even a pre-revolutionary one!) is just a way to rationalize sticking to very timid methods (peaceful marching, union organizing) that are fine in themselves but are not pushing things forward during a time that demands bold, dramatic action. This is the most “revolutionary” or “pre-revolutionary” or whatever period I’ve experienced in my life, possibly the last one I’ll ever live through. This is a fight, and capital is actually kind of vulnerable. A lot of people are pissed off. Marxists who talk all day about “class struggle” and “revolution” but are afraid of broken glass and who it might alienate are, I think, a little ridiculous. In my opinion radicals should be reaching out to the minority who are already angry and ready to act, who have some level of consciousness, and ignore the corporate media, the politicians, the bureaucrats, and the apathetic middle class. People are being turned out of their homes, literally murdered, the planet destroyed - when someone says we shouldn’t fight back with what is, after all, hardly the most violent method - a little vandalism - I have to wonder what their real priorities are.
#23. Posted by Marvy on September 15th 2010 at 10:55am
Ive been an outlaw all my life, what you folks experienced at g20 I couldn’t walk 2 miles from one end of town to the other without getting arrested…I know all about the state and police and poverty and addiction and I have also excelled in academic circles until the hypocricy pretty well lead me back to being an outlaw-it does take honest relations with others to bring it all home if you get my drift So while you talk about cozy Marxists and everything else you have no idea what you are talking about or who you are talking to. There is no revolution happening other than in your own head. Until the bread and butter issues force everyday Canadians into the street there won’t be one either. People rightly or wrongly are to busy tending their own gardens. And from everything I have learned in my over 55 years of experience tells me that I should pay attention to those who have successfully wrested power from those who have it. Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it. The Bolshevik Revolution ushered in the most democratic society in history and it’s devolution until the capitalist counter revolution has been well documented. You think you know better than they do? I don’t think so.
Cheers,
RR
#24. Posted by Rocky Racoon on September 15th 2010 at 9:00pm
This is what we need more of and we need to start the days of action and a general strike until our demands are met…..
Fuel station workers strike kicks off: Fin24: Business1 Sep 2010 ... How many people know what the correct tyre pressure on their ... When I asked the attendant why they weren’t striking, he siad they weren’t quite sure what was happening (typical .... Everywhere else in the world there is no such thing as a petrol ... I’m hungry right now, think I’ll strike at work, ...
http://www.fin24.com/.../Petrol-workers-strike-kicks-off-20100901 - South Africa - Cached
Workers strike for right to stop working7 Sep 2010 ... Workers strike for right to stop working ... Although the French are able to retire much earlier than many of their European neighbours, the proposal - to be put ... despite the French having one of the world’s longest life expectancies. ... You’re the only person reading this now. Tell your friends ...
http://www.theage.com.au/world/workers-strike-for-right-to-stop-working-20100906-14xxj.html
Construction workers’ strike threatens 2010 World Cup preparations ...8 Jul 2009 ... Construction workers’ strike threatens 2010 World Cup preparations ... Mineworkers (NUM), which also represents many building site workers in South Africa. ... But right now, you have to do a little bit more,” he said. ...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article6660910.ece - Similar
Electricity workers strike threatens Greece with blackout | libcom.org16 Mar 2010 ... Great to hear that so many strikes are occurring. .... Secondly I note various comments suggesting radicals around the world may be rushing to Greece to ‘help out’. ... My view is that a radicalization of the population is happening (or .... The doctors have other problems that they face right now. ...
libcom.org/.../electricity-workers-strike-threatens-greece-black-out-16032010 - Cached
Carlsberg Workers Strike Because They Can No Longer Drink On The ...10 Apr 2010 ... Now these workers probably just have liquid lunches. ... we are the best in the world at everything and we have no clue on so many things it is down right sickening. ... even fox managed to get the facts right, for once! ...
perezhilton.com/2010-04-10-carlsberg-workers-strike-because-they-can-no-longer-drink-on-the-job - Cached
Worldometers - real time world statisticsObese people in the world right now. People who died of hunger today. Money spent due to obesity related diseases in the USA today (US$) ...
http://www.worldometers.info/ - Cached - Similar
Carlsberg Beer Workers Strike for Right to Drink « Kasama10 Apr 2010 ... Hundreds of Carlsberg workers are on strike because the brewer failed to ... workers have been allowed to drink as many beers as they wanted ... Marx reached word limit
#25. Posted by Rocky Racoon on September 15th 2010 at 9:40pm
The division within the environmental movement between market ecologism and ecosocialism has become increasingly clear with the failure of Copenhagen and the promise of Cochabamba.
In addition to this, you may want to visit Triple E Immigration Services, a known for its expertise when it comes to immigration consulting. Based in Vancouver, British Columbia, our company is acknowledged for its efficiency service in handling immigration concerns.
#26. Posted by Matt Narciso | Canadian Immigration advocate on September 16th 2010 at 10:20pm