Debate

Black Bloc-Headed


By Steven Fake

In the wake of the G8/G20 economic summit protests in Toronto, Canada this past weekend, black bloc demonstrators have once again sparked discussion on the left and hysterics in the corporate media. Closely linked to anarchism, the continued popularity of the black bloc tactic colors the reputation of protesters, particularly anarchists, and merits a response with greater clarity from anarchists.

The record number of arrests during the Toronto summit – some 900 people – has created an urgent need for solidarity work in support of the prisoners. For information on donating to a legal defense fund and forthcoming events, visit the Toronto Community Mobilization Network.

The black bloc phenomenon reputedly emerged out of Germany in the 1980s. It is predominantly a youth movement and no doubt only marginally within the influence of even other anarchist currents. Nonetheless, a more cohesive critique of the impact of black bloc tactics from within the more serious currents of anarchism will only aid in diminishing the phenomenon.

There is no doubt that black bloc protesters are sincere and on the right side of the larger issues. However, their failure to seriously engage with the broader movement over the utility of their tactics is indicative more of a subcutural identity clique than a continuation of the serious organizing carried out by, for instance, the Spanish anarchists of the 1930s.

Democracy requires discussing tactics in a format that ensures accountability to others organizing the demonstrations. Instead, the code words “diversity of tactics” are often used to cloak a range of actions that inevitably impact all activists involved in protests.

Granted, if the existing political climate in North America were far more radical, and wide swaths of the general population understood destruction of corporate bank facades as an act of political opposition to class exploitation, the tactic would not be harmful. However, it is quite evident we are not in such a period.

Masked faces simply alienate the very people that must be organized. It does not help that masks also facilitate infiltration by the police. The context is important. In the Chiapas region of Mexico, concealing one’s identity may well be a canny response to police repression.

Of course, one need not accept the breathless portrayals on television of violent nihilists. There is no doubt that the corporate press leap upon the property damage and intimidating garb of the black bloc to run lurid tales of looming violence. That the commercial media are not impartial is hardly a surprise – all the more reason to avoid giving them easy targets to demonize.

To take one of the more restrained assessments in the press, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorialized last fall, in the wake of the Pittsburgh G20 summit:

“Sadly, for all the good-hearted protesters who sought only peaceful means to exert their constitutional right to dissent and make points worthy of respect, a smaller element evidently came just for the sport of raising hell, or so it can be inferred from the scattered acts of mindless vandalism that took place Thursday. That pointless behavior emphatically proved that the security precautions taken for this summit were not over-reactive, they were simply prudent.”1

While the generally abysmal portrayals of protesters in the media must be refuted, the task is not aided by granting public relations gifts to the forces of corporate rule.

The noninterference of the police in property destruction – much remarked upon in Toronto – is a clear indication of its utility for the elite. Many observers have noted the usefulness of images of destruction in the media for justifying the $1 billion spent by the city of Toronto on “security” measures. Lest there be any doubt, the Toronto Police Department declared: “All you have to do is turn on the TV and see what’s happening now. Police cars are getting torched, buildings are being vandalized, people are getting beat up, and [so] the so-called ‘intimidating’ police presence is essential to restoring order.”

As the famed author and activist, Naomi Klein, observed, the police strategy consisted of “allowing what happened on Saturday [in Toronto] to happen with almost no intervention; and then… using that inaction as justification for scooping up hundreds of other activists, beating up journalists, just going on a rampage. Now, it they were serious about getting the people who had broken the windows, they would have done the arrests there at the time.” Pittsburgh witnessed a similar pattern: property destruction on the night of Thursday, September 24 – and mass arrests of individuals not connected to Thursday’s vandalism the following night. Thus the property destruction is used as justification for later assaults and detentions of protesters, journalists, and bystanders at random.

The history of police infiltration and provocation within black blocs amplifies the point: the tactic is a godsend to the city governments hosting these economic summits, and ultimately the “masters of the universe” crafting economic policy for the globe.

Moreover, even putting aside strategic considerations, the unorganized property destruction characteristic of many black bloc actions is often hard to defend. In Pittsburgh, the Rand Corp./ Software Engineering Institute building on Fifth Avenue and Craig Street, housing Defense Department-funded research facilities, was not the only edifice left with broken windows. Also damaged were a Quiznos Sub shop, quite possibly owned on franchise by someone who could ill afford the hundreds of dollars required to replace store front windows, and the Oakland institution, Pamela’s Diner, among many other businesses. The Pamela’s co-owner, Michele Mazzella was quoted as saying, “It had to be people who aren’t from the area, people who don’t know us.”2 Very likely, she was right.

But why would such destruction even be contemplated without assessing the most appropriate targets or ensuring cohesion among the participants? It is true that all of the damaged properties were objectionable to some degree since none of the targeted businesses practiced workplace democracy. Yet, if it seems quite likely that even the employees would be mystified by the vandalism, it is evident that such actions are counterproductive. Graffiti advocating workplace democracy would at least convey an unambiguous message.

During the Pittsburgh protests, pedestrians could frequently be overheard deriding the demonstrators for the property destruction. In this depoliticized era, seeing a group of black clad youth charging down the street is unlikely to evoke sympathy or even comprehension from most onlookers.

Of course, parenthetically it should be noted that the biggest expense for many local businesses was the summit itself, as the city terrified many businesses downtown into boarding up, and the militarized area was transformed into a ghost town.3

Fortunately, there are encouraging signs within the circles that contribute to the black blocs. In preparing for the Pittsburgh protests, some anarchist voices expressed the need for greater focus on long term organizing within local communities.4 Indeed, within Pittsburgh, there was an ambitious outreach campaign in a few neighborhoods. Yet, generally, there remains among many a striking insularity, reflected not only in group social dynamics but in the failure to seriously consider outreach to the broader public. Frequently, this kind of outreach never even seems to occur to those who identify as anarchists. Tabling, door knocking, distributing fliers – any form of outreach that permits conversations with the public – these are the tactics of groups interested in building mass movements. Instead, the rental of buses to bring a broader sector of the public to these events is left to groups like A.N.S.W.E.R.

This inward focus is one reason that no anarchist group in the United States counts more than several dozen members to its name. The lack of organization is a remarkable failure in light of the surge of interest in anarchism coming out of the Seattle WTO protest in 1999 and the doubtless significant numbers who identify as anarchist within the American left.

  1. Editorial, “Summit Success,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 27, 2009, B2 []
  2. Ramirez, Chris, “Oakland cleaning up after protesters,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Sept 26, 2009, A7 []
  3. Rotstein, Gary, “Was summit good for business?” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 27, 2009, A8 []
  4. Incidentally, the building frustration with the inadequacies of many of the protests at these elite economic gatherings has lead some dismiss the protests as “summit hopping.” This is a mistake. The protests are vital. But they can only gain vigor and effectiveness through the complimentary building of social movements at local levels. []

48 comments

  1. I wrote up a really long, great response to this — which I promptly lost as soon as I went to submit it without an email and it gave me an error page. Goddamnit. Anyway.

    In short… I have to say, I am truly disappointed in this essay. I’ve noticed this current in some anarchist writings lately and it’s been thoroughly disheartening to see some of my comrades being so narrow-minded. It plays right into the media trap of conflating the diverse assortment of anti-authoritarian anti-capitalists who choose to engage in black bloc tactics during street actions into one monolithic group of young, angry punk kids who just want to fuck shit up and have no grasp of “serious” anarchism as a political ideology. How offensive! How arrogant and alienating a message to come from another anarchist!

    As anarchists we do not need to be infighting and isolating folks who choose to engage in certain tactics that we may or may not agree with. And you’re free to disagree! Just don’t box us all into such a downright insulting group of less serious folks who you claim do nothing but smash windows (once again, I have to reiterate, that is SUCH a media lie and you believe it).

    When you look at a group of folks in a black bloc that’s all you see. What you do NOT see are their other revolutionary endeavors, such as community work, labor organizing, infrastructure building… do you really believe that’s all most of them do, is smash windows? By all means, if you want to write a piece about lifestyle anarchism, do so! (Although Bookchin’s got you beat, I think.) But don’t knock the folks who choose one tool from a toolbox of many to show their refusal to accept the established order. Black bloc as a tactic has many elements beyond smashy-smashy that make it useful when used at the right times and in the right ways. While I would say that it’s always good thing to question tactics, and would agree that to some extent smashing things does “justify” (in mainstream eyes) police repression, I still think it’s a good tactic. In the past two centuries there have been many anarchists who have supported and validated “violence” as a useful tactic and tool of the oppressed.

    I happen to know very many folks who engage in the activities you described — “Tabling, door knocking, distributing fliers – any form of outreach that permits conversations with the public” — including myself. And we are NOT the exception to the rule!

  2. I’m all for criticizing black bloc for “its” tactics, strategies, and philosophy. Indeed, let’s be really critical and point out how most summit-hopping protesters, black bloc or not, protest out of reaction and habit, enacting a repetition without any difference. Which wouldn’t be a problem if they were effective. But they aren’t really, in their ability either to disrupt or to form new political assemblages. At this point, I’d say one of their main accomplishment is to allow the police to refine their crowd-control techniques.

    So criticize away, but this article goes about it all wrong. In fact, sentiments like “a more cohesive critique of the impact of black bloc tactics from within the more serious currents of anarchism will only aid in diminishing the phenomenon” are a little creepy. I usually think of it as the state’s job to purge politics that get in its way. Similarly, the call for cops to be more consistent in their detainment procedures and the lamentation of the broken windows at small shops evidence both a citizens’ investment in “their” security forces and a petty bourgeois belief in the neutrality of small business. Neither of these sentiments would form an anarchism I’m interested in.

    These rather scary things aside, it seems to me what the author is calling for is an even more reactive anarchism. That is, a “serious” anarchism that hews more closely to the state’s and capital’s ideas about responsibility and propriety. That would entail an eclipsing of the black bloc. In this context, the author’s evocation of democracy and the (completely spurious) opposition between organization and spontaneity makes sense.

    Finally, since the author wants anarchism to be a mass movement, please consider that if it weren’t for the black bloc, these summits and their protests would go on with no one in the wider world knowing about them. The black bloc makes them explosive events that people hear about. Negative publicity? Sure. But that’s better than the no publicity that peaceful protest would bring about. Right?

  3. Un Abeja, we support violence as a useful tactic and tool of the oppressed. Mike Kolhoff wrote a great article on tactical utility of violence. But, I don’t see a way in which the black block tactic is useful in G8/G20 type of situations. In fact, black block does a lot more damage to us than to the “world leaders” because the police and the media have perfected techniques for manipulating black block activities. This particular summit demonstrated that. We don’t want to fight with black block participants or to isolate them but to point why in our opinion they are counter-productive. If the tone of the article is dismissive then that’s unfair, but it shows frustration with a lot of ineffective activity done by anarchists.

    Eric, what do you mean by more reactive anarchism? To me, more serious anarchism means anarchists considering the impact of their actions on ordinary people. Cohesive critique of a certain practices is not a code phrase for “purge”, but a critique that makes sense to many in organized anarchist currents. Also, why is more people knowing about G20 because of black block is a positive thing? It makes resistance to big ruling class events more alien to most people.

  4. Juozas, well, for starters, I’m less sure than you of are what it is that motivates and is meaningful to “ordinary people.” I’m not even sure that I know what an ordinary person is, and if I did I would never presume to know what appeals to them.

    I called it a reactive anarchism because the writer quoted newspapers as authorities on the general consensus and implied that “serious” anarchists should pay attention to and abide by the media’s considerations and concerns. It’s reactive because it surveys–in a partial and nonobjective way–the current political scene and then tries to create a politics that doesn’t offend the principles of that scene. After that, anarchists can only react to events rather than forge their own.

    I’m not sure it is a good thing that people know of the G20 because of black bloc. I was using the writer’s logic, that these events should be used to make the broadest appeals possible, to point out that the general public would never know about these events if the black bloc didn’t help create such disproportionate police responses. Also, something the writer doesn’t seem to notice, black bloc’s extreme tactics only make “serious” anarchists more appealing and rational. The writer should thank black bloc, not try to erase them.

  5. By ordinary people I have in mind folks I know in my family, my friends, coworkers and others who largely don’t care about politics. Although few are conservative and some are anarchist, most are apolitical or vaguely leftish. I believe that most of them would take part in resistance to bosses, politicians and everyday hierarchies of capital if it made sense to them. If they felt they could win something. I presume to know what is meaningful to them and what motivates them because I talk to them and take part in their lives. That’s the only kind of “ordinary people” I know. Black block participants are also regular people (and I know some of them too), but their activities are symbolic and alien to most people. I feel it’s possible that they are contributing to separation between concrete struggles by “ordinary people” and revolutionary perspectives.

    I think the author quoted newspapers and authorities to illustrate how black block tactics were used by newspapers and authorities against us. All anarchists obviously are against the principles of these authorities. But those institutions are powerful enemies and we should not give them ammunition. I want a massive revolutionary working class movement to exist. Such a movement would receive far more hatred from the political scene than the black block ever could, but black block by making a target of itself doesn’t help bring such a movement closer. When participants in a wildcat strike or a popular rebellion like LA riots disregard bourgeois principles we support that.

    Anarchists are a political minority. Whatever we forge won’t be worth much unless a number of ordinary people get involved. The viciousness of repression against early IWW (their activities were revolutionary and very relevant to people’s lives) shows what our rulers fear the most. Whatever we do that keeps us and our ideas in the minority we should stop doing. When we take initiative it ought to expand and deepen the struggle. This requires some serious thinking. I believe that being too serious is harmful as well, because rebellion should be joyous and our daily self-restraint that makes it possible to survive also maintains capitalism. I can’t speak for the author, but on the positive end I see seriousness as commitment and understanding that to be effective we need to work and think hard.

    I don’t think black block tactics make us, organized anarchists, seem more appealing to people we want to influence unless we stop calling ourselves anarchists.

  6. By the logic in this article, the early IWW should have disbanded because they were demonized just as thoroughly in the media as the black bloc is today. And they alienated just as many people. Almost all strikes in the late 19th century were demonized just as much, and alienated a lot of people. Strikes often alienate people who use the struck service or product – by this article’s logic we therefore shouldn’t strike. And if the police don’t violently suppress a strike, the strike must have been fomented by agent provocateurs who want the strike to alienate people and justify police power.

    Neither a black bloc nor a strike are primarily intended to win converts – they are intended to strike back at the oppressors. They can also have a radicalizing effect on the people who participate in them, but they are not intended to win converts among non-participants.

  7. Again, I must ask those who write articles like this: What is your intention? This is another in a line of 2-3 essays (Common Cause and Four Star Anarchist Organization’s come to mind) which seem unclear on their objective. Are you speaking to those who participate in black blocs? Or are you speaking to to those who don’t, and the intention (conscious or unconscious) is basically disassociating yourself from black bloc tactics to appeal to others? I think this is something that really needs to be thought about before writing, whether it is this or any other critique, the question is: What am I trying to do with this and who do I want to get the most from it?

    I’ll get to that in a bit, but first I want to address your mention of the Spanish anarchists. I think you neglect to say that there was a tension between the insurrectionaries and the syndicalists and they were over much more than relatively tame black bloc tactics. They were over actual uprisings, assassinations and robberies. Anytime the Spanish anarchists of that period are brought up as models of serious organizers, I agree…but it isn’t as simple as that.

    Getting back to intentions, if it was directed to those who participate in black bloc tactics, it would be worth becoming familiar with the politics and discussions going on in that crowd.

    “Democracy requires discussing tactics in a format that ensures accountability to others organizing the demonstrations.”

    I think you make assumptions that others see ‘democracy’ as something worth fighting for and engaging in. While I think anarchist critiques of ‘democracy’ often equal little more than squabbling over irrelevant word choices and definitions, not being familiar with it makes any referencing of the word unwise/tricky.

    But really, what do you mean by this? Does this mean that protests have to be united popular fronts where everything is approved by everyone before anything happens?

    “Masked faces simply alienate the very people that must be organized. It does not help that masks also facilitate infiltration by the police.”

    The purpose of black bloc tactics is not recruitment, nor should every single thing anarchists do be decided based on public relations possibilities. I don’t buy the police line either. The state can and will infiltrate anything it deems worth it, whether masks are involved or not. Most of the informants and undercover agents of the last 5 years have not been found in the black bloc, but in open, above ground and accessible groupings. Should that be an argument against these groupings?

    “While the generally abysmal portrayals of protesters in the media must be refuted, the task is not aided by granting public relations gifts to the forces of corporate rule.”

    You know what? Without the sensationalism of ‘violence’, often protests aren’t mentioned at all. That’s the way the media works, and that’s why it’s unwise to base what you decide to do too much on how the capitalist media cover it. Smash things and you’re covered negatively, be peaceful and you aren’t mentioned at all. It’s a lose-lose situation.

    “The noninterference of the police in property destruction – much remarked upon in Toronto – is a clear indication of its utility for the elite. ”

    Much remarked and much refuted. Before promoting the opinions and views of progressives such as Judy Rebick or Naomi Klein, I think it’s worth considering the anarchist responses to their accusations and conspiracy theories.

    Debunking veteran activist Judy Rebick’s G20 Toronto police car conspiracy theory
    http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20100630033458909

    Chronicles of Rebick: The Real G20 Police Conspiracy To Divide Social Movements
    http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20100704051838303

    G20: They Were Doing Their G-D Jobs: On Policing
    http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20100703192733672

    I really don’t understand this emerging trend of indicating a police conspiracy of allowing property destruction, particularly among radicals who should know better. Maybe the influence of Alex Jones has finally infiltrated some people’s psyche. It shows an ignorance of how street actions work or an underlying dishonest motivation. Either way it should be avoided without actual evidence and proof, otherwise, it is nearly badjacketing.

    I agree with you that militant protests are now being used as justification for the security costs, but this is just a switch now that Islamist terrorism is seen as more of a stretch currently. But to go from this to indicating that there is some type of police conspiracy to allow property destruction with the intent of getting a bigger budget is something that belongs on Prison Planet, not in the media of serious anarchists.

    “Also damaged were a Quiznos Sub shop, quite possibly owned on franchise by someone who could ill afford the hundreds of dollars required to replace store front windows, and the Oakland institution, Pamela’s Diner”

    I agree that some of the things chosen are tactically unwise and maybe even idiotic, but I don’t think it’s our place to come to the defense of the petit-bourgeois. I don’t feel sorry for small business owners as they are a class that has opposing interests. Just because it’s a local franchise doesn’t mean the people who own it exploit us less than larger corporations. Romanticizing the small business owner feeds into the American rugged individual myth.

    The last part of this piece addressing the shunning of outreach or building a mass movement I agree with. I feel we need to do more outreach and build an amount of infrastructure that can be utilized for our purposes. That infrastructure exists in some places. Ironically, it is usually operated and maintained by the same people who are into the more militant protests you deride. I used to buy into this dichotomy of militant protests Vs. movement building, but when you actually see that the camp screaming this has no infrastructure and the camp that is into summit hopping does…it changes your perspective on things.

    I’m a member of the WSA and Wild Rose Collective (and the IWW), and these are organizations that I feel ‘get it’. They believe in building and participating in mass movements that can truly contribute to where we want to go as pro-revolutionaries.

    However, I’ve also attended the Crimethinc convergence and participated in militant street actions. I disagree with many in that camp and at times, been very frustrated and angry with their ideology and tactics. But they are still comrades and it’s worth being familiar with what they are doing and when we disagree, to be as respectful as possible while offering constructive criticism for an ongoing dialogue.

  8. By the logic in this article, the early IWW should have disbanded because they were demonized just as thoroughly in the media as the black bloc is today.

    If you can’t tell the difference between breaking a Starbucks window and organizing a strike, I really feel sorry for you.

  9. Many strikes involved breaking a whole lot of windows, and sometimes even armed self-defense. Bellamy accused the “waivers of the red flag” of being funded by the trusts, in a manner similar to the liberal conspiracy theories around G20. Furthermore, the early IWW advocated sabotage, not just strikes. And even disregarding all that, the premise of this article is that you shouldn’t do things that make us look bad in the capitalist media (and therefore shouldn’t do black blocs). Following the same logic, most strikes before the thirties (and many since then) should not have been done because they make us look bad in the media.

  10. Also, the logic implies that your beloved Bolsheviks should not have seized power in Russia because that got extremely negative press coverage everywhere outside of Russia.

  11. JJ, IWW and powerful 19th century strikers did alienate some people, but they have also drew people in because their actions directly related to concrete problems and situations lived by working class people. And it’s clear they didn’t alienate as many people, because unlike black block they were constantly growing and including new people from many different social situations. Much of that had to do with their historical situation, but some of it was because they consciously organized to broaden working class resistance. Black block is problematic because there is no positive side to them being demonized. All that happens is they get turned into an image of “actual anti-capitalism” – an image that is utterly foreign to most people who otherwise resist capital daily. Similar thing is done with all forms of resistance to capitalism as well, but black block makes it easier than necessary.

    Some strikers (like metro workers) might be very unpopular among working class people, but we support them because if they win all of us will be stronger in relation to bosses and everyone will see that striking gets the goods. Also, even unpopular militant working class struggle has some chance to break out of its isolation when their situation resembles that of more more passive or even unsympathetic workers. It’s not about getting converts, but about receiving solidarity from larger and larger segments of the working class. I don’t see how black block could overcome its isolation. Even if it “wins” (destroys a lot of capitalists and police property) this “win” is a loss if almost everyone else becomes more estranged from attacks against capitalist property.

  12. JJ, no one here likes the Bolsheviks. I don’t have any interest to go into that, but I feel you just want to troll.

    My beef is not that we shouldn’t do things that make us look bad in capitalist media, but that looking bad in capitalist media is a cost to anything we do. We ought to consider what we get for it and whatever black block gets is not worth it.

  13. Dead End, I agree with you regarding understanding of “democracy”, the social role of small business and popular fronts, but I agree with the the author regarding police use of black block activities. Everything I know about working class history tells me that police would do exactly what they did in this summit. I fully expect them to calculate what protesters’ activity could be portrayed as most alien to normal reality. I expect they would permit and record this activity and display it with captioning that benefits the police. I don’t think this is so Alex Jones given how developed the spectacle has become and how much of all reality in current times is based on media manipulation. These techniques seems century old to me.

  14. Maybe you believe it, but I think that the accusation of that being the case at the G20 is disproved by the articles I listed, so it’s kinda pointless.

  15. I pretty much agree with Dead End, particularly when he asks what the goal of a piece like this is. It seems to me to place Black Bloc folk at arm’s length, starting with the dis in the piece’s title. I happen to think that the Naomi Klein “the police deliberately stood down” story is plausible – though Dead End is dead right that it needs to be verified and we should wait before making any conclusions until a lot of verification happens – but even if that *is* true then we need respectful engagement, not distancing from others and calling them block heads.

    A few other things –

    “Masked faces simply alienate the very people that must be organized.”

    Maybe. I dunno. Some people are excited by it. I saw a black bloc in action in 2000, saw cops retreat like 3 or 4 blocks, it still gives me goose bumps to think about, it totally broke me out of a sense that we were completely doomed and no real change could happen. And even if it does… I’ve been told a few times in workplace organizing that keeping the workplace organization on the downlow is alienating. If so, too bad, because we need to keep quiet for a long while until we’re ready to withstand the boss. Just because something is offputting to some people doesn’t make it wrong.

    Juozas, you said “their activities are symbolic and alien to most people”

    As opposed to so much of WSA and our sister organizations activity…? Or this article?

    You write:
    “I want a massive revolutionary working class movement to exist. Such a movement would receive far more hatred from the political scene than the black block ever could, but black block by making a target of itself doesn’t help bring such a movement closer. When participants in a wildcat strike or a popular rebellion like LA riots disregard bourgeois principles we support that.”

    Then you write:

    “Whatever we do that keeps us and our ideas in the minority we should stop doing. When we take initiative it ought to expand and deepen the struggle.”

    I agree with you a lot of this, but if we’re going to be consistent then according to the logic of what you’re saying, shouldn’t we also denounce popular rebellions if the majority of the working class opposes them? I mean, if so many working class people are put off by the kind of thing that went down in Toronto, should we also start denouncing people rebelling in Oakland now? Of course not, but I think if we push on the reason why we don’t then I’m not sure how much of the urge to dis the black bloc would survive.

    Also, about the IWW – when the first world war broke out the IWW was wildy unpopular for all kinds of reasons, among them was that the IWW was involved in organizing industries which were immediately important for the war effort, including agriculture/food production. Basically some key industries got somewhat militarized. The struggles of workers in those industries and the IWW’s involvement in those struggles was super unpopular. As one example, in Zane Grey’s novel the Desert of Wheat Grey basically quotes newspaper coverage of the assassination of Frank Little, changing almost no details, and portrays it positively. This was published like a year or three after Little’s murder, and I believe the novel sold well and was quite popular. It seems to me that a very similar argument could be made that the IWWs who organized in militarized industries were like Mr. Block.

  16. One other thing I want to add – as a WSA member I want to say that I think it reflects poorly on the WSA to lead with criticizing the black bloc tactic rather than with solidarity for the people arrested and beaten by cops. I know there’s a box on this page about that. The size of that box vs the size of the article, and the number of words devoted to solidarity with those folk vs the words in the article calling other anarchists blockheads, to me doesn’t make it sound like our priorities are in the right place.

  17. I had suggested that the article focus on the people arrested…most of whom had nothing to do with the black bloc.

    That said, those who compare the black bloc to late 19th century strikes or IWW strikes overlook something: Those actions were part of the class fight between workers and bosses and had the support of most workers in a particular industry or workplace or they would not have taken place. They were not actions of a conscious revolutionary minority, taking matters into their own hand.

    I’ve known too many anarchists or other radicals who just don’t have the patience for conversations with coworkers or neighbors who don’t already have some highly politicized outlook and motivation. And I don’t think focusing on activities like the black bloc encourages this mentality or practice.

    I’m a syndicalist and not an insurrecto for a reason.

  18. Nate, I was trying to argue that we should support unpopular working class resistance because the nature of those struggles leaves the possibility open of them expanding, whether is something that IWW was organizing and or something like what happened in Oakland last year or in LA in 1992. Even a prison revolt can inspire others prisoners and make connections to the rest of working class. While black block tactics has no such possibility as far as I see it because unlike working class riots or prison revolts they relate to a much more symbolic capitalism. Our activity as WSA is as alien to most people as black block, but I think we can change that by conscious effort because many of our ideas can apply to present every day life.

  19. hi Juozas, I don’t think you can actually know that. I mean, yes, it’s possible that a prison revolt can inspire other prisoners and make some connections. It’s also *possible* that black bloc mobilizations can inspire people etc – I already mentioned an example from my personal experience where this happened. And I’m pretty sure that the black bloc type stuff being done today only involves some of the people who were doing it 10 years ago, which means there’s been a generational transition or two. Which means that some people have been inspired by black blocs and some connections have been made (otherwise, black blocs today would be made up of the same people who were doing them 10 years ago). And about prison revolts, it’s also possible that the revolt can inspire some strongly negative reactions due to fucked up qualities in other working class people. Mass revolts often have mixed character, if we dig enough we can find problematic or inspiring stuff in most examples. Dead End already made this point but it’s worth repeating – being like “the rest of the class will respond in such-and-such way to this tactic” has a place but it’s overestimated in this article and discussion.

  20. This essay indicates a really misinformed view of what occured in Pittsburgh during the G20. I assume from the way it is written it’s intended primarily to draw attention to ideas&action, but this should not be at the expense of needless provocation.

  21. I suspect many of us are a lot more “ordinary” than we’d like to think. And that’s a good thing. Many of us are just ordinary people with extraordinary ideas. It’s safe to say that if something feels wrong to us, it very likely feels wrong to others as well. It has nothing to do with its level of popularity. It’s all about the practice of using other people as human shields. There is no universe where that is okay.

    As for the tactical aspects of the black bloc, there are none. It’s an activity, like bungee jumping or some other “bourgeois” activity. It comes off wrong to many (most?) of “us”, and I’m sure it does to pretty much every other non-sociopath around. And that, by itself, should be more than enough reason to STOP DOING IT. That is if we are actually concerned with success, with winning, and not just getting our self-indulgent radical rocks off playing Extreme Militant (new from World of Warcraft!).

  22. Which ‘we’ are you talking of? Because, obviously, by the language you’re using (‘human shields’, ‘bourgeois activity’, ‘sociopath’), you have no serious intention or concern on whether those who do the blac bloc stop. A serious intention would realize that all that does is make one look like a sectarian who chooses to use the same language demonizing black bloc tactics that non-profit liberals and politicians do.

    Look, I’m not saying that I agree with these tactics. I’m not saying they are effective in their goals or even worth doing. However, this is obviously appealing to people, otherwise, as Nate said, numbers would have been dwindling. Ya’ll do what you want, but when the people involved in that stuff notice the scathing, unresearched and uncomradely tone in our critiques, don’t be surprised if they don’t care. Why should they?

  23. Dead End is spot on. If we want to engage with other radicals, we should do so in a principled way. When we disagree with a tactic, we’d do better to engage than to sneer and act like elitists with the Correct True Line.

    I’m not opposed to the black bloc in some sweeping, generalized way. And I don’t mind critiques of it. But criticisms are more effective when they’re not ringed with insults, ad hominems, and groundless (over)generalizations.

    I also hate the “normal” “average” worker crap, but that might be another debate altogether.

  24. Let me address some of the critical comments here that seem representative of the negative responses.

    One issue is an inability to accept criticism as a healthy and positive aspect of political discussion and grapple with the arguments presented. Example – Un Abeja’s assessment of the article: “How offensive! How arrogant and alienating a message to come from another anarchist!” Or the very existence of the critique is taken as evidence of a Stalinist urge. Example: Eric’s “I usually think of it as the state’s job to purge politics that get in its way.”

    Do the black blocs contribute to publicizing the protests as Eric believes when he writes “if it weren’t for the black bloc, these summits and their protests would go on with no one in the wider world knowing about them”? Well, it does certainly give the media something to focus on. However, this is a bigger topic. The recent history of antiwar protests is sufficient to indicate that simply having large numbers of people protesting will not guarantee more than a blip on the national radar. Civil disobedience is one very useful tactic for compelling greater media attention. Shutting down the proceedings in Seattle in 1999 was one example of this. However, it does not follow that the black bloc is the only (or best) way to practice civil disobedience or gain media coverage.

    Dead End asks what the intention of the article is and who it is directed towards. The answer is provided in the second paragraph of the article: it is directed principally towards dedicated anarchist organizers who may potentially have some influence in diminishing the black bloc phenomenon. More broadly it is aimed at anyone who has contact with black bloc members through their organizing work and black bloc members themselves.

    Dead End also raises the fact that currents of the Spanish anarchists engaged in “actual uprisings, assassinations and robberies.” However, as the article is at pains to point out, the political context of the times are crucial in assessing whether such actions are useful or counterproductive. If the above actions had the effect of alienating the CNT and anarchists from the Spanish populace, it would have obviously been counterproductive.

    Another point raised by Dead End concerns the advisability of the term “democracy” as something to aim for. I’m well aware of the diffidence with which some regard the ideal but have very little respect for that diffidence. I disagree with their politics to the extent that they don’t support democracy. In fact, their diffidence may well be a factor in the persistence of black bloc tactics. Dead End asks, “Does this mean that protests have to be united popular fronts where everything is approved by everyone before anything happens?” I don’t like jargon like “popular fronts” but, putting that aside, I don’t believe consensus would be a workable way to organize all the protest activities at a summit. I do, however, think that political development occurs through discussion and democratic debate. If those supportive of black blocs engage in them without the support of or discussion with the principal organizing bodies that reflect the activist communities in a location, then there’s no opportunity for mutual understanding or growth. If, instead, the black blocs do cooperate with the broader activist community engaged in the summit protest work, that’s a far healthier dynamic.

    Another point regards the apparent police refusal to intervene to stop vandalism. Dead End supplies several links to argue that the above scenario has been “much refuted”. This is a point subject to evidence. Readers are urged to visit the links and make up their own minds. My own take is that these sources are hardly a conclusive refutation. Moreover, the sources only concern the behavior of the police (arguing that police non-intervention reflected incompetence rather than deliberate decisions) and do not tackle the argument that it provides a gift to media seeking justifications for the arrests. Also, contra Dead End’s injunction against “promoting the opinions and views of progressives such as Judy Rebick or Naomi Klein”, I do not mention Judy Rebick and, frankly, had no idea who she was. As for Naomi Klein, anarchist or not, I find her a useful commentator.

    Dead End writes: “I agree that some of the things chosen are tactically unwise and maybe even idiotic, but I don’t think it’s our place to come to the defense of the petit-bourgeois.” However, the point made in the article was precisely that the targets are unwise. Call it defending the “petit-bourgeois” if you wish, but what useful purpose is served if even the exploited employees’ attitudes towards the vandalism are unknown and may well have been negative?

    The article poses no “dichotomy of militant protests Vs. movement building” and it certainly does not deride militant protests. To the contrary, militancy can be invaluable. I simply argue that black blocs are not a helpful form of militancy. I cannot help but wonder how the article failed to be respectful “while offering constructive criticism for an ongoing dialogue.”

    Regarding Nate’s comment on the title. Obviously, “black bloc-headed” is an ad-hominem insult. It was used simply because it was the first play on words that occurred to me and despite my concern (evidently warranted) that it might heighten defensiveness.

    Nate raises the question, “if so many working class people are put off by the kind of thing that went down in Toronto, should we also start denouncing people rebelling in Oakland now?” I think it should be evident that riots are not the most politically advanced form of rebellion. Condemnations typically come from those who would prefer a passive population. The difference between the black bloc and traditional riots is that black blocs are deliberate and planned, and hopefully therefore somewhat subject to arguments about what is most tactically effective.

    Another issue raised by Nate concerns the advisability of leading with a critique of the black bloc rather than a call for solidarity with those arrested at the Toronto summit. I would argue that, given the likely readership of this publication, most will be quite familiar with the general outline of events in Toronto and the need for solidarity. As I had nothing original to contribute to the reportage of those topics, I focused on an analysis that reflects particularly on matters with which readers may have some direct influence.

    Finally, Deric argues that “If we want to engage with other radicals, we should do so in a principled way. When we disagree with a tactic, we’d do better to engage than to sneer and act like elitists with the Correct True Line… criticisms are more effective when they’re not ringed with insults, ad hominems, and groundless (over)generalizations.” It’s impossible to disagree with that. However, if Deric is referring to the article, it’s also hard for me to find anything that bears any resemblance to what he describes.

  25. Dead end,

    I sympathize with your confusion, but man, you don’t make any sense, which I guess is inevitable considering the subject, and fits with all of the other comments defending (yet not advocating?) black bloc activity. You:

    “I’m not saying that I agree with these tactics. I’m not saying they are effective in their goals or even worth doing. However, this is obviously appealing to people, otherwise, as Nate said, numbers would have been dwindling.”

    Okay, so the upshot is: people like doing it, so it’s wrong to criticize and condemn? Their gratification is more important than any ethical considerations or any political considerations, and anybody who calls them on their irresponsible self-indulgence is a “petit bourgeois” or a “sectarian”?

    Deric says you’re “spot on”, but it appears to me that you need to think about what you’re saying. It may come as a shock to you but sometimes just because people like doing something doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. I could think of all sorts of grotesque examples; if you think about, it I’m sure you can to.

    It may seem cruel to point this out, but the black bloc is much admired by the tribal-fascists who call themselves national anarchists. Think about it: all dressed in black, masked, busting windows and street-fighting; seems much more like fascist activity than something done by people advocating anything like libertarian socialism.

    Solidarity,
    Mike

  26. Mike,

    He’s spot on that we should engage in principled criticism and not badjacket folks in our critiques. A good example of this is suggesting that bloc tactics are “admired” by fascists and, therefore, “much more like fascist activity” than libertarian socialist.

    I advocate for working class revolution. Sometimes I imagine that will include militant action, people hiding their identities, sabotaging and destroying property, and fighting in the streets with police and fascists. I don’t think that makes me a “sociopath” or someone who advocates for “bourgeois activity”, etc. That’s a bunch of loaded bullshit to avoid having a real discussion because you don’t like something. I’d prefer real arguments with substance, personally, and think they move the discussion and debate forward in more principled ways than badjacketing, over-generalizing (do you really think that all of our comrades who have participated in, or will participate in, black blocs are sociopaths?), and the rest of the non-arguments that just add up to substanceless name-calling.

  27. Mike,

    Shop this piece around to some pro-black bloc folk and see if it changes any minds. If it does, I take it all back. I bet it won’t, and I’d go double or nothing that it makes more people dig in or write off the WSA. If I’m right, then what’s the point again of all the criticizing and condemning? For the people who already agree to enjoy criticizing and condemning?

    It appears to me that you need to think about what you’re saying. It may come as a shock to you but sometimes just because people like being condescending and smug about other people’s views doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. And the comparison to fascists and all that, there’s no nice way to say this, comrade, but as one WSAer to another you sound nuts.

    Nate

  28. Deric,

    You said:
    “I advocate for working class revolution. Sometimes I imagine that will include militant action, people hiding their identities, sabotaging and destroying property, and fighting in the streets with police and fascists. I don’t think that makes me a “sociopath” or someone who advocates for “bourgeois activity.”

    No, it doesn’t. But if you decided to suddenly dress all in black and go out and pretend the revolution was happening RIGHT NOW, sabotaging, smashing, destroying, fighting cops and goons, etc., it would be well within the realm of possibilities that you were suffering from some sort of antisocial personality disorder.

    I have to wonder what some people think a working class revolution really means. To me it’s obvious that the greater part of any revolution will be creating and building. Given the nature of capitalism and the capitalist state it will also probably involve destruction and civil war, but that’s a lot different than what we’re talking about, (the dressing-up in your militant revolutionary outfit and going out for a bit of adrenalin boost).

    You said:
    “That’s a bunch of loaded bullshit to avoid having a real discussion because you don’t like something. I’d prefer real arguments with substance, personally.”

    Yes, me too. And what you’ve written is neither a real argument nor containing any substance. You object to my tone? Tough shit. Explain to me why the “black bloc” is anything more than an exercise in ultra-left self-indulgence.

    Are all the people who participate in it sociopaths? Of course not. Is it a sociopathic activity? Definitely. Does repeatedly engaging in sociopathic activity increase the risk that they will develop into sociopaths? You bet.

    And if you don’t believe the tribal-fascists LOVE the black bloc, do some research. I’ll give one to start with: http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v23n4/rebranding_fascism.html

    Why do fascists like the black bloc? It has EVERYTHING they want! It’s arrogant. It happily violates the rights of others! It’s aggressive! It wears a uniform! How could any fascist resist the attraction of the black bloc?

    Solidarity,
    Mike

  29. Mike, that article you linked to doesn’t actually support your argument. You’ve said “fascists love black blocs!” to support your claim that black blocs are a bad idea. What that article actually demonstrates is that fascists have tried to infiltrate black blocs. And they’ve been caught, and kicked out. As that article you linked to states. That seems to me like some mighty tenuous evidence for a claim that black blocs have some meaningful connection to fascism. Personally, I think basing such incredibly strong and loaded a claim on so little evidence is irresponsible at best.

    The article also states that some fascists have tried to get involved in Tibet solidarity actions and I’m told by people I trust that in the early 00s there was talk of fascist groups trying infiltrate Palestine solidarity circles. Perhaps we should denounce Tibetan and Palestinian solidarity, to make sure we’re safe from fascism.

    Fascists have gotten involved in unions too, like the BNP’s union in the UK, or come out of the labor movement. We might also consider incidents like hate strikes in the US. Those things could be used as evidence to say that unions have some inherent affinity with fascism, as you’ve said black bloc tactics do. That would be no less justified. And no more justified, which is really my point.

  30. “Nate raises the question, “if so many working class people are put off by the kind of thing that went down in Toronto, should we also start denouncing people rebelling in Oakland now?” I think it should be evident that riots are not the most politically advanced form of rebellion. Condemnations typically come from those who would prefer a passive population. The difference between the black bloc and traditional riots is that black blocs are deliberate and planned, and hopefully therefore somewhat subject to arguments about what is most tactically effective.”

    Steve Fake, I really wish you would make more careful distinctions in what you categorize as “traditional” riots. Because if we’re talking about Oakland (and we ought to be, given its timing), how the hell do you know that the property damage in downtown Oakland last week, or last year, wasn’t planned? By characterizing riots as politically unsophisticated, you’re implying that those who engage in riots — Oakland, Rodney King — aren’t politically sophisticated. Where do riots mostly happen, and what sparks them off? Police or state violence against people of color, most often. Right? You’re uncomfortably close to saying that brown people who riot are dumb. I don’t need to point out how incredibly patronizing that is, let alone pretty racist. (Implying that young people who riot are dumb is just as bad.) In making this offhand remark, you show a complete lack of understanding of the history of resistance to police violence in Oakland; if you think those rioters didn’t have a consciousness of their tactics, maybe you’re not reading in the right places. And if you’re going to critique the black bloc because they have an analysis, then show the Oakland rioters (indeed, rioters everywhere) the same respect. Except that then, your whole argument about the black bloc would evaporate. Because in fact, “ordinary people” DO decide on protest tactics. Often it’s called rioting.

  31. I would like to say that I’m very glad for the debate, and that I very much appreciate what everyone is saying. I think the spectrum of issues touched on herein is the correct spectrum. It is hopeful to see sane and intelligent analysis on the issue. I’m hopeful that we can get to the point where solidarity will prevail within the movement.

  32. Look, it’s ridiculous to criticize the black bloc because the collaborationist media and the pigs use it as an excuse to justify repression. If protests are getting out of hand (which a REAL protest does! what do you think demos are for? Mainly, they’re to scare the living shit out of the ruling elite – if we’re not at least trying to do that we might as well pack it in), cops are going to make arrests no matter what: whether windows get broken or not. If the protest is tame, not only will radicals have failed in their main task, but the media will of course say “see, all that expensive security was quite effective at keeping order!” Best to forget about trying to curry favor with the corporate media and the pigs: it’s not anarchist, and it’s not going to work.

    Similarly, it’s ridiculous to think the powers-that-be WANT to see cop cars burning and rioting at their highest-level international get togethers. You can’t seriously think the cops allow this stuff to happen – it shows that you weren’t there, for one thing (if you were you’d know that’s not how it happened, and that cops are far from “perfecting their crowd control techniques” as one commenter put it), but it’s also an absurd theory in principle. The elites will OF COURSE put the best face possible on rioting and use it to their advantage as much as they can. But they would infinitely prefer G20 summits to take place amid social peace and domesticated sheeple.

  33. Sorry, one more thing: a lot of the anti-black bloc argument in the article and comments seems to be saying that “the working class” is “revolutionary”, or at least potentially so, but that we should activate this potential by union organizing, not targeted vandalism – because vandalism is apparently too scary for this “revolutionary working class.” I’ll leave others to sort the logic of this argument out. But I would like to say that in my opinion Canada/the US are VERY conservative societies, and that unions aren’t likely to change that. Strikes are now extremely rare in the US, and NEVER have any kind of “revolutionary” overtone. That might change, but I think it’s just as likely that sabotage will inspire people to be “revolutionary” as it is that signing a union card will.

  34. I don’t see the point in this article. It aligns organized anarchists too much with the reformist left. I have far more sympathy with the spirit and intentions of the black blockers than I do with that of the leftist moderates and politicians, even if the BB’s actions don’t always help that much. You are of course correct that long term organizing is far more important than black bloc actions, but those actions do have a minor radicalizing effect on sections of the class, that cannot be discounted. I think you underestimate how many people enjoy seeing a bank window smashed, particularly in these economic times.

    The phenomenon of repression is rather more complicated than ‘certain actions give the ruling class an excuse to repress us’ (they would often repress us anyway) and the process of evolution of political consciousness is far more complex than ‘we must wait until the people approve of smashing bank windows before we smash bank windows’ – it is THROUGH action that people come to approve of smashing bank windows (partly). Now smashing bank windows is a poor example since it is hardly a very worthwhile act, it really doesn’t achieve that much, but it’s one I’d have a hard time condemning either. “The public” doesn’t approve of strikes and occupations either – does that mean that militant sections of the class should wait until the popular consciousness is ready? Of course not! It’s only through those actions that a growing section of the population becomes more amenable to those ideas.

    The BB has a positive effect in that it increases the militant character of a demonstration that might otherwise be entirely harmless to government and business. Take for example the huge (over 1 million strong) anti-war march in London (the big one, not in Canada) in 2003. It posed absolutely no threat to the government whatsoever despite its gigantic size. It was a total failure in affecting the Blair government’s position on the Iraq war. If a black bloc had caused property damage during that march, it couldn’t possibly have made it any worse.

    “Democracy requires discussing tactics in a format that ensures accountability to others organizing the demonstrations.”
    – certainly true in many situations (although I wouldn’t say to others *organizing* the demonstrations but to others participating in the demonstrations), but I don’t see that anarchists need to have any democratic agreement with the authoritarian left – master manipulators of ‘democratic’ decisions.

    “That the commercial media are not impartial is hardly a surprise – all the more reason to avoid giving them easy targets to demonize.”
    – their bias means there’s little point in trying to present a clean image – they will demonize us anyway, so this argument is invalid.

    “Also damaged were a Quiznos Sub shop, quite possibly owned on franchise by someone who could ill afford the hundreds of dollars required to replace store front windows” – this is the worst statement in the piece though – I seriously have no sympathy with the petite bourgeoisie, who would exploit their employees equally ruthlessly as any corporation. The only difference is they are weaker, and lack the power to repress them as much.

  35. Diversity of tactics is not a codeword, it is a principle of organizing that is vital to our movements. It considers the diverse society we live in, with many peoples, cultures, lifestyles, class, ethnicity, etc. No one form of communication or action will reach all people, instead a wide diversity of methods is both natural and necessary. DVDs, comics, books, zines, posters, banners, graffiti, radio, t-shirts, etc. are some examples of diverse communications methods. In the realm of actions, again, no one form of activity will appeal to or inspire all people. The black bloc, contrary to the opinion of this article, does indeed inspire some people–those who see routine peaceful protests and petitions as largely futile, useless, and weak. People do not join a resistance unless they see the possibility of success; I would wager that many of the most oppressed agree with the call for social change but are unwilling to join what they see as a losing team, one engaged largely in intellectual debates and public relations exercises (peaceful protests). Black blocs don’t appeal to everyone, for sure, but neither does pacifist rallies waving placards around. I think many people have a good grasp of the true nature of social conflict and revolution-it involves violence and destruction to one degree or another. The black bloc inspires some social sectors because it addresses this basic question and in doing so shows that the state and its security forces are not omnipotent but can be defeated. Which brings up the conspiracy theories which have arisen concerning police manipulation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To date, no evidence of police infiltration of the black bloc during the Toronto G20 has emerged (it is now May 2012). Police infiltrated groups organizing the protests, both radical and reformist, but there is no evidence that they infiltrated the black bloc and/or had any influence over its actions. No one group ever does in a black bloc. The massive police deployment was outmaneuvered by a highly fluid and mobile black bloc–it’s happened before and will undoubtedly happen again. It is the logic of conspiracists, however, to see the hidden hand of the state in all crises and conflicts, and to then present such theories as facts. Part of their problem is that they see the state as all-seeing and all-knowing. Again, the black bloc doesn’t appeal to everyone, but neither does pacifist protests or routine civil disobedience. We need to adopt diversity of tactics as a basic principle of organizing and solidarity.

  36. http://www.facebook.com/boots.riley/posts/10151186157408664
    Boots Riley
    The use of the blac bloc tactic in all situations is not useful. As a matter of fact, in situations such as the one we have in Oakland, its repeated use has become counter-revolutionary.

    Yesterday in Oakland was a good illustration of this, in which the blac bloc kids- besides busting up bank windows- also busted windows of parked cars and threw stuff at another car- to which the Black driver of said vehicle got out looking to fight the crowd.

    Similarly, the crowd of folks at Somar were there for the end of Matthew Africa’s memorial- DJs and artists, and generally a group of folks who collectively probably know everybody in Oakland- I’m not exactly sure what or if anything happened before I saw the scene, but folks poured out of the club en masse to protect it, yelling at the march and telling folks to go home.

    If “the job of the revolutionary is to make the revolution seem
    irresistible”, the use of blac bloc has been making a revolutionary movement pretty damn resistible in Oakland, CA.

    When almost every conversation I have with folks from Oakland about Occupy Oakland, has the smashing of windows brought up as a reason people don’t like that grouping, scientifically it means the tactic is not working. It doesn’t matter that technically it’s only smashing corporate windows. It matters that people don’t want to join because of that. It’s not about violence/non-violence. The truth is that it’s not always corporate windows. I’m for certain tactics that would be classified as violent- even ones that have to do with fighting human beings. But what it’s about is a tactic that is detrimental in this situation. I would like to win, thank you. Not just lose with style. A style that the people around you don’t understand.

    Many folks bring up Greece when debating these things. I’ve been to Athens. What I witnessed there was that the movement was tied in with the people. Most of those involved grew up in Athens, they also are part of militant campaigns that happen throughout the year, which the people support, moreover, they just know the people of the city of Athens. And, perhaps due to this situation, there are way more of them.

    It’s not due to lack of outreach that Saturday’s “West Coast
    Anti-Capitalist March”- meaning, one that not only reached out to the whole west coast- was only able to draw 150-300 people. It’s because it’s not what the people care about- not framed in that way- and because others are either bored with the tactic or scared of being arrested because some kid breaks the window of some used car that probably costs less than their own Honda Civic. But, that was in SF. Most of the folks doing this don’t know anyone from Oakland, and- I believe- don’t plan on doing any sort of base building to find out where the pulse of the people actually are.

    If you ask most people in East or West Oakland what their problems are- they’ll say being broke is there number one problem. Campaigns that use militant mass movement tactics to achieve changes in that situation are ones that have a revolutionary potential.

    I’ve talked to many a person in Occupy Oakland and even in some
    anarchist collectives who agree with me on this, but the idea is that to criticize this publicly is to make the movement look divided. But, the public non-critique of this has the effect of making the movement look monolithic, hegemonic and uninviting. Instead, people talk shit about each other behind their backs, split and divide into smaller and smaller affinity groups. All the while, not critiquing the counter-revolutionary bullshit that’s making them irrelevant in the minds of the people they
    ostensibly want to organize.

    Let’s get this shit right and win.

Leave a Reply