Violence breeds violence - couldn't have said it better. That means the ruling class have it coming.

"I don't have to incite violence, the forces of oppression bring it on themselves"
-me

Lovely quote. couldn't have put it better myself

Taking the violent approach is playing their game, after all
they have all the firepower. We need to ridicule them and show them for the incompetent crooks that they are, that's not so hard. The word here in Italy is that "a state of happiness" has been declared for the whole three days of G8.
Let's enjoy protesting, their shitting themselves the corporate media has'nt got a clue what the protests are about, it's all a bit much for them.
There's no need to be violent.
But I know how you feel, it's great when the cops run away !

before this violence/non-violence thing splits us any further (and wouldn't the powers-that-think-they-are just love to have us busy fighting each other over ideology and tactics rather than focusing on their misdeeds) can't we just agree to disagree in general, and for particular demos/actions negotiate a tactical approach that everyone is happy with?
I thought that Prague proved this case well with a choice for people between the three different blocks - and the best thing was (for me at least), the fluffy people were the ones who got inside the barricades!
Is the point of an action to be violent or not be violent, or is the point to use the most effective tactics to achieve the greater goal and stop the greater evil? in my experience non-violence is usually more effective, but as long as attention from the mainstream media and macho values remain important (which will be a while I feel) it's inevitable some people will choose violence. I personally don't want them doing it near me or in my name, so I think it's best if a section of any action such people want to attend be set aside for them to indulge their minority sport and give the media the pictures they need. then those who don't want to be party to violence don't have to be, plus we'll see exactly how much violence is provoked by police actions towards a non-violent crowd. the only thing I'm worried about with this is that if the really violent activists are in as much of a minority as I suspect, they'll start feeling pretty isolated and want to go back to chucking stuff from the middle of a crowd. which is why i think I'll be taking a helmet on big actions in future...

You say:-
'But I know how you feel, it's great when the cops run away !'

Sure - but take a look at 'cops running away' in a historical perspective - it's easy enough - just grab a riot photo 1) from the 1930's (Moseley?) 2) from the 1970's and 3) from Seattle or Prague

Now - do you see any differences in gear and tactics used?

All you rock throwers are doing (apart from the adrenaline buzz and testosterone gratification) are upping the ante. Yesterday's cop is now looking like today's paramilitary - why is that, do you think?

Where does it end?

Do you really want to live in a post-nuclear world of disease and total chaos - power only to the weapon wielders?

I don't think so - not even the most psychologically damaged of you...

This protest movement is about reducing the power to wield weapons, be they nuclear or financial, over the vast mass of people who just want to lead decent existences free from pirates of all kinds.

> This protest movement is about reducing the power to wield weapons,
> be they nuclear or financial, over the vast mass of people who just
> want to lead decent existences free from pirates of all kinds.


Well that's where we differ. I don't want to reduce the power of the ruling class, I want to destroy them altogether. The whole violence/non-violence argument is an ideological one, *not* a tactical one. If you're a revolutionary who wants to smash the capitalist system and build a new world based on libertarian socialist/anarchist principles then you'll be in favour of any means necessary to achieve that objective. If you merely wish to reform capitalism into a less repressive model then you can favour peaceful methods of protest, and I wish you good luck in your struggle. Just don't get in my way when I'm throwing a molotov at the pigs :)

'I don't want to reduce the power of the ruling class, I want to destroy them altogether.'

And with what will you replace them? Another repressive regime of your own making, is my guess despite your claims to anarchy.

The only revolution that produced a lasting (well, 40 years!) result was lead by Gandhi - a dedicated non-violent anarcho-syndicalist.

Escalation of violence is in danger of clouding the entire issue of 'saving the planet' - this will in turn only benefit those with reptillian tendencies - that is; 'the ruling class'. Progressive activism will wilt under such conditions. It always has, it always will.

Time for intelligence to win out over brain-stem-driven kicking out responses - otherwise we're fucked - royally fucked. Again - and again - and again...

Amen.

Lemming says:

If you merely wish to reform capitalism into a less repressive model then you can favour peaceful methods of protest, and I wish you good luck in your struggle. Just don't get in my way when I'm throwing a molotov at the pigs :)

two things:
1. I'd rather a less repressive model of capitalism than a more repressive one - which is what throwing molotovs inevitably generates - but I'd rather something other than capitalism altogether. and considering that people have been throwing molotovs for centuries without having much impact on capitalism, (meanwhile giving a lot of people the idea that all anarchy involves is bombs and stuff), I'd humbly suggest it's time to move on from this tactic. Just as much as it's time to look past traditional marxism, naive non-violence and all the other things have worked up to a point but are not getting us over the hump to the brave new world we seek...
2. If you choose to engage in violent struggle, I think it's probably your job to make sure there's nobody in 'your' way - I don't want me or my compadres to become collateral damage from 'friendly fire' wielded by just another bunch of idiots who can't aim straight. in fact, why can't you make sure there's no BODY in the way at all, because a revolution based on extra-judicial battery and burning is going to be just as unjust and anti-democratic as the system we're fighting now.
so yes it is about tactics, because you can't separate the means from the ends, and if the means are crude and undiscriminating (not to mention proven ineffective for true social revolution), I don't much fancy the outcomes...

But if you think youre gonna win something by throwing rocks to cops, giving the images the corporate journalists needs to manipulate the population, you are gravely mistaken. A swordfight is like a chess game, you must think before you move. Playing right into their hands! Is that thinkin? not sure at all

I was wondering how long it would be before you dragged Gandhi out of his grave. Despite your bizarre delusions, he was an Indian nationalist, *not* a revolutionary anarchist. He shifted power from the hands of one ruling class to another. Again, it's an ideological issue, not a tactical one.

I'm not going to respond to your implicit allegation that I'm somehow not really an anarchist, but accusing me of being authoritarian is a bit rich considering you're defending the basic structure of the existing capitalist system. Argue against my perceived need for a revolution, rather than the methods that are necessary to achieve one.

And as for not throwing rocks in order to placate the corporate media (which is part of the system we're trying to destroy!), I think it's a good thing that they're all going nuts about "hardcore anarcho-extremists" - it means they feel seriously threatened by a movement that's more serious about changing the world than hippies who wave flowers and smoke pot. I thought that was what the alternative media was for - getting our word out without mainstream spin.

"Why must we forever dwell on the "violent" methods that are necessary to destroy capitalism, when the methods necessary to preserve it are infinitely more violent?"
-me again

the violence of the system we are fighting is characteristic of the system we are fighting.

our movement can do better than copying the oppressors.

and yes a bloke in a mask with a missile is threatening - but not half as effective at demolishing capitalism as a broad-based co-ordinated diverse movement with enough self-awareness to understand each others' instincts and exercise self-control on occasion - instead of just scaring a few people in middle england.

Lemming why don't you answer my points, why do you keep going for the easy answers?

we need to go beyond the knee jerks now that we are winning...

'Before seeking merely to destroy, we must think about where it is that we are going and what tools we are likely to need. There may be parts of the system which should be carefully deconstructed, so that we can understand better where they went wrong, keep any useful components for later use and be sure to utterly destroy any which can only be used for distortion, oppression and violence.

Then, we can win a revolution without condemning ourselves to a sea of ruins.'

me.

Philip Willan in Rome
Wednesday June 27, 2001
The Guardian

Thirty leading Italian film directors will turn their lenses on the G8 summit in Genoa next month, and on the assorted anti-globalisation movements in town to register their protest.
The collective film of the event is being coordinated by the director Francesco Maselli to give a voice to dissident opinions which may not receive a hearing from the mainstream media.

"Only directors with long experience behind a camera can do justice to the particularity and complexity of an event like the one in Genoa," Maselli told the leftwing daily L'Unita yesterday.

Among the directors supporting the project are the veteran Gillo Pontecorvo, Gabriele Salvatores, Ricki Tognazzi, Carlo Lizzani and Pasquale Scimeca.

"It is our duty to roll up our sleeves and work with others on such an important occasion, when the quality of life of the future is being decided," said Pontecorvo, the director of The Battle of Algiers.

He does not expect to record the same scenes of violence as in his classic film on the Algerian war of independence, but believes that cinema enjoys an editorial freedom that is lacking in Italian television today.

"All the major Italian film directors have a past in documentary-making. We will be reviving the habit of our youth," he said.

Pontecorvo said he expected the film to be shown in cinemas and broadcast on television. Most of the project's directors have leftwing sympathies, so he does not anticipate problems in harmonising their diverse accounts of the event, which takes place from July 20 to 22.

"The editing will be the crucial moment, which will set the tone and determine the substance of the thing," he said.

The veteran director Luigi Magni has pledged his support for the project, although he said he would not be braving the streets of Genoa in what is likely to be torrid summer heat.

"The issue of globalisation should involve everyone," he said.

"They have to realise that the world cannot be destroyed for profit, to take account of the conditions of life in Africa and Asia, of hunger, drought and the destruction of the polar ice-caps. What are we going to do with the world? That's the real question."

The director Carlo Lizzani told L'Unita: "I am supporting the initiative because I completely agree with those who say that the world is not just the G8, but is also another 2bn people who are not represented and who have the right to be. It seems obvious to me that cinema should be on their side."

The government has launched a charm offensive to stifle any potential anarchist violence at the summit through a strategy of attention.

The chief of police, Gianni De Gennaro, has been sent to Genoa to meet leaders of the 700 protest movements represented in the Genoa Social Forum.

Renato Ruggiero, the foreign minister and a former chairman of the World Trade Organisation, has offered to transmit a document expressing the views and wishes of the protesters to all the world leaders attending the summit.

The government hopes its assurances that dissent will enjoy a high visibility in Genoa will eliminate the protesters' desire to drive home their point with violence.

I was hesitant about dumping the whole article here but sure that's the puichline:-

'The government hopes its assurances that dissent will enjoy a high visibility in Genoa will eliminate the protesters' desire to drive home their point with violence.'

And is that so very unreasonable considering who issued the statement? Seems to me we have driven the wedge in the door - all we have to do now is prise it open.

Lemming, think about this:-

'Our' movement needs numbers, right? In fact it needs a 'majority' of the world's population if it's going to succeed globally, right?

The more people prepared to come out of the woodwork and be counted, the more likely we are of achieving our aims of a better world for all BEFORE the corporate reptiles totally trash what is left.

This is not going to happen if mister and misses family man of conscience daren't show up because their kids might get hurt in the chaos of a police reaction to loonies with rocks, is it?

And as someone pointed out to you, I ain't necessarily a capitalist just because I advocate peaceful revolution. Fluffy is fine, spiky is just driving people away - Ya Basta! excepted - now there's bravery without violence and look how they've captured the publics imagination. Making authority look foolish is surely far more effective than getting them more and more robocop-like?

If you insist on being violent, please go and join some worthwhile constuctive (??) violence like ALF or even better ELF - leave the streets to the huge masses the will appear once the fringe loonies leave us all alone to get on with building a better world.