Yes, come on. For all this talk about the black block, I've yet to see any detailed defences of just what they are FOR, their vision, and how they think a better world will be achieved. Indiscriminate violence is stupid. As for "targetting"...well, with what end? Capitalism is not built of glass. Surely black blockers don't think values will change simply because MacD's have a few windows to replace? Do they? Tell me. I'm afraid I don't get it.

This is just the kind of liberal drivel that we need to avoid. The Black Bloc is a tactic - not a group. BB is organised around the idea of affinity groups which have particular targets in mind. I met many BBs in Genoa who were against burning people's cars and smashing up smaller shops. The overwhelming majority of targets were corporate properties, expensive cars and primarily banks. Many were shocked that some people were buring cars; hey, many of these may have been agent provocatuers (as proven in many photos and videos - some shown on Italian and German TV) - others may simply be misguided.

Whether or not you agree with property damage as a tactic, you cannot impose your ideas on the rest of the movement. It is absurd for you to claim that your ideas are better than many thousands of commited anarchists who risked their lives to stop the undemocratic workings of the financial elite.

In addition, your claims above are dubious : 'I met some who were drunk - THEY WERE STUPID'. Who the fuck cares? I met some people from ATTAC who were drunk, but I wouldn't simply go and label them idiots. In fact, it sounds like you are very young to be writing such funny statements. Perhaps your post was a joke and I've missed the point.

Please, if you aren't some security agent trying to divide the movement, then shut up. You authoritarian ideas of imposing so-called-peacful-protest upon us all are pathetic and ill timed.

What I would agree with you though is that the Black bloc as a tactic needs to be evaluated and perhaps modified to make it harder for infiltrators to mess things up. This could be done through making the affinity group structure slightly more rigid or by putting direct democracy into action whenever and wherever possible during black block actions.

Some BB apologist wrote:-
'Please, if you aren't some security agent trying to divide the movement, then shut up.'

Does anybody see the incredible irony and complete futility of this request in light of what has just happened in Genoa?
If it wasn't so very tragic it would be hilarious.

BB tactics used by the fascist opposition are doing us in - in the eyes of the world - ya know, all the folk who would join us if they knew they could protest without being tortured for it.

Simple as that - divide and rule, thanks to the BB.

Now Ya Basta! - that's the way forward...

BBs often defend themselves with a claim that we should not 'impose' our way of doing things on them, usually accompanied by the use of the word 'liberal' as a slur, or a casual accusation of complicity with the state. This just amounts to a childish claim of 'shut up, I'm more radical than you.' But this isn't an adequate response, and often serves to avoid useful discussion. Using such volatile tactics, the 'members' of the black bloc (those who use those tactics, if you prefer), need to continually reconsider whether their actions are as radical as they suppose, or are actually backwards and reactionary.

The attacks on peaceful protest, whilst the black bloc were merely sheparded about, usually into other protests, serving to disrupt them, suggests firstly that the authorities are more threatened by peaceful protest, and secondly that they just love the black bloc. Infiltration of radical groups by the agents of the state is an old old thing, and has to be watched for, especially as the blac block is ridiculously easy to infiltrate and subvert for the state's purposes (propaganda, forcing local opinion to become negative, justifying increasingly violent repression on the streets and discrediting the voices of protest elsewhere etc.)

This isn't 'liberal' or 'pacifist,' but just to say that the black bloc , as a tactic, doesn't actually seem that radical after all. So...what to do about that?

The first post was not trying to 'impose' peaceful protest upon the black bloc, but suggesting that they get more organised. Which can hardly be a bad thing. Practically, the black bloc are situation where everyone is masked (who knows WHO anyone is, or what they're working for? The majority of bacl bloccers could be police, for all anyone knows. I've heard claims, for one, that the bloc in Genoa weren't "the usual" one...), and any discussion is pretty impossible amidst the chaos, nevermind the fact that questioning any one action can lead to witchhunting 'police' accusations..

The black bloc in Seattle was far more organised, they only attacked specific targets, and they even put out a short manifesto on why they targetted whom. Whether the work of police infiltrators or drunken idiots, the utterly unconstructive destruction of small shops in Genoa might not have happened if the black bloc had somehow been more organised, but as it stands the black bloc, infiltrated or not, ends up causing pretty stupid destruction a lot of the time. But then with an action/protest of the size of the one in Genoa, such organisation might be impossible, in which case the effectiveness of the black bloc as a tactic needs to be carefully reconsidered.

And, I'd agree, Ya Batsa seem to have found a very clever middle ground, that keeps the best of both worlds, and avoids the problems of both.

Shouldn't treat Ya Basta too uncritically - it seems to me that at the top of this organisation are a group of self-promoting leader figures, only interested in making a political career for themselves, riding the wave of other people's anger and desire for change... but maybe that's what turns you on. Follow the link for an article written from an anarchist point of view.

"In the North East part of the country in the social centres, we have produced new cadres, serious people like Luca Casarini. They are ours or aren't they!? Now some social centres are orienting themselves as an independent enterprise. They have Cacciari (the Mayor of Venice) as an intelligent interlocutor, they are thinking as a democratic lobby" (Interview of Fausto Bertinotti, secretary of Rifondazione Comunista Party, in Il Manifesto of 16 July 1998).

First of all I'm violent and antiliberal.
Assumed that every intelligent person knows violence is everywhere the political problem is different.
Using black bloc tactics in Genova without informing GSF and other protesters about it has been tragically wrong.
BB should have made clear statements about what he was going to do, and why. On the contary they didn't communicate with anyone and bring mess in other demonstations. As you ask pacifist not to impose their view to BB why shouldn't pacifist ask BB not to impose BB their direct action in their demos ? BB could have made whatever they want without bringing mess in other groups demos which were unready to cope with that kind of police repression.

This is the only working pragmatic approach to the relationships between BB and the rest of the movement.

For what concerns political thought of BB I repeat that you have no positive ideas about a different model of society so you're going to loose. But that's only my personal
opinion based on some thousands of years of human history.
I'd like to translate you some appreciations to BB actions by italians nazifascist group.....

The tactics of BB did not trigger the brutal behaviour of the police. The attacks by police on demonstrators had been sanctioned well before the G8 summit began. If BB tactics had not been used in Genoa the violence against the demonstrators would have been just as bad. I was shocked and appalled by what happened in Genoa. It made me realise / remember that corporate globalisation makes this kind of repression and far worse an every day event for millions of people all over the world. You can argue about how effective the BB is as an act of propaganda but don’t blame it for coursing the police violence.

Shouldn't treat Ya Basta too uncritically - it seems to me that at the top of this organisation are a group of self-promoting leader figures, only interested in making a political career for themselves, riding the wave of other people's anger and desire for change... but maybe that's what turns you on. Follow the link for an article written from an anarchist point of view.

"In the North East part of the country in the social centres, we have produced new cadres, serious people like Luca Casarini. They are ours or aren't they!? Now some social centres are orienting themselves as an independent enterprise. They have Cacciari (the Mayor of Venice) as an intelligent interlocutor, they are thinking as a democratic lobby" (Interview of Fausto Bertinotti, secretary of Rifondazione Comunista Party, in Il Manifesto of 16 July 1998).

Again... Does anyone see the linkage between the Government- Police-media and the non-violence movement? They seem to feed off of one another... What a sickening relationship. The Blac Bloc does need to change its tactics- up until now they have been woefully timid...

The reason BB like to infiltrate other people's demos, and conceal their identities, is simple - they are cowards.

And as to the general philosophy, it seems to me that any new society built from aggressive tactics will continue to be aggressive. I can't somehow imagine all these armed thugs suddenly dropping all their weapons, casting aside their masks and joining us all in harmony if their great new world vision comes about.

As someone else has said, capitalism doesn't exist in objects, but in peoples minds. It is an idea. The only way you're going to defeat it is by changing peoples minds. Whereas if you break something - people just fix it. No change.
The only opinions that get changed as a result of those kinds of actions is a hardening of views against the alternatives, which sets us back from creating a mass movement.

If anyone is dividing the movement it is BB.

Had the bb not been there then the police violence against the peaceful protesters may indeed have been "just as bad", like you claim.

BUT




(and it's a big BUT)



If there were no violent protesters and only non violent ones then it would have been a lot easier to see - eg on television - that the only violence was police violence.

As it is, the BB have given an excuse - for people who want one - to denounce the movement as a bunch of hooligans.

The BB clearly *are* a bunch of thugs. They're not going going to achieve anything and I'm not dividing the movement because they're a tiny minority, they're more trouble than they're worth and they've never been part of our movement anyway. So my message to the bb is straight forward.

FUCK OFF!

"our" movement? Since when did it have owners? I don't think you can say 'it' (it is an us, actually, made up of all of us who participate, BB or anyone else) somehow belongs to you and your tactics and politics over those of others. That's just nonsense.

And no, the Black Bloc aren't "thugs," that's exactly the kind of midless, reductive stereotyping that Tony Blair et al go in for, except they apply it to all of us and our "anarchist travelling circus." It might simplify a complex issue for him and his Daily Mail readers, but it's not very constructive. Take a quick look at the Seattle Black Bloc statement if you want a simple refutation of your implied claim that they're lacking intellectual ability or political commitment, or that they are necessarily intent on 'violence' (another media simplification, they merely see property damage as a useful tactic, whether you agree or not. 'violence' against the riot police is maybe another issue, but they're hardly the first group to advocate various levels of practical militancy, and it would be equally an unfair simplifaction to label the black panthers or nineteenth century anarchists who advocated propaganda-by-the-deed as also being simply 'thugs'. Though of course that didn't stop the mass media of the times..)

In Genova BB didn't make any statement and neither spoke to any othrer group. This is why people considered them thugs.
This was thei biggest error.

"For what concerns political thought of BB I repeat that you have no positive ideas about a different model of society so you're going to loose. "

I was replying to your comments about the Black Bloc. Your comments seemed stupid, but as you've now demonstrated, they were simply written probably in haste, and seemed childish. We agree on the need to think about the tactics we employ on these demonstrations and then you claim that I haven't advanced any ideas about "different models of society"!

BB is a tactic - it is not an ideology, though certain strands of political/philosophical theory support BB tactics better than others.

To clarify, we aren't discussing a post-revolutionary or an eco-anarchist utopia; we aren't discussing how social relations will work in perhaps a 100 years, or even a 1000 years after the abolition of capitalism. We are talking about a TACTIC to bring about this change.

Whether or not you believe that post-revolutionary values should be included in the methods we employ today is kind of irrelevant since we are talking about BB - a tactic.

It seems there are three main points being raised in this discussion of the BB.

1) is the use of violence by BB damaging or advancing the movement
2) does the BB have a coherent political programme
3) are they infiltrated by/ set up by/doing the work of the state

1) violence at demonstrations has without question been a driver of media attention to the anti-capitalist movement. And these days you can even read articles in the mainstream media that almost go as far as justifying it.
Almost all progressive political movements have used violence at one time or another to advance their aims when they have felt that normal politics is failing to respond - this is clearly why the anti-capitalist movement has headed in this direction. As has been expressed by others destruction of property is merely a tactic. I believe to date it has boosted the movement but we clearly now need to debate whether this is the case going forward.
2) isn't it revolutionary, anti-state socialism (ie anarchism)? in fact the BB seems to have a much MORE coherent political line than much of the movement - which ranges from radical priests, to green capitalists., to communists etc (which I think is a good thing by the way). is there even a single line adopted by Indymedia?
3) probably to a very small degree. but again so are all left/progressive groups. bear in mind in addition to using agent provocateurs the state has also historically covertly supported (politically and financially) more moderate groups on the left to undermine the more radical elements. read Lobster magazine on the UK govt's involment in the trade union & socialist movement for more of this. so whose game are we playing if we attack a radical element within our own movement?

A few comments:

Zero Zero seems to think that tatics and ideology can be seperated this is nonsense; everything is idelogical.

The tatics you use have consequences.

Capitalism is not a shop window or a bank or a car; they'll clear all the mess the up next day (or rather other workers will).

Capital is a social relation is it is stopped when people strike or occupy their workplaces.

Demonstrations can do a number of things, for them to be successful they must build a larger more confident movment.
The movement needs to be inclusive it cannot be made up of just young street fighters. This is elitist.

Militant mass movements may use violence tactically but only to achieve certain ends (for instance in Genoa to break throught the Red Zone), property damage however good it makes people feel that do it (and I believe the anger is genuine, but misplaced) does NOT affect capitalism, mass strikes and occupations DO, that's the situation we need to get to.

You will not find in history one example of significant change for the better being successfully made by small groups of people destroying property.

The violence of capitalism is the real enemy, but those that consider the Black Bloc tatic as effective have yet to make any good arguments as to why- because I believe they can't.

Strategy and tactics are important, Italy more than any other country shows the paucity of trying to fight the state with small terroristic acts.

noel

Without trying to seem pedantic, ideology and tactics CAN be separated. People can be in favour of a peaceful, harmonious world, but believe at the same time that the way to bring about this world is property damage or even violence.

Its about weighing up your moral convictions and your pragmatic evaluation of the situation. Tactics can and often do involve ideology, but often they are responses to different situations.

if capitalism is a social relation is it only disrupted by strikes and occupations? what about burning down the factory?

this emphasis on traditional left/trade union tactics is interesting. agreed mass movements are the way forward but in the absence of any likelihood of strikes or occupations in support on the anti-capitalist movement (and let's be honest their is no chance of this happening in the UK in the near future) to insist on only using these tactics (because that's what it says in the rulebook) can only hold us back.

agreed much of the trashing of property is inappropriate but so is insisting on a workplace-orientated strategy when that isn't where the fight is happening.

this same problem happened during the poll tax campaign. many on the left could not conceive that it could succeed without some kind of workplace struggle. yet now it ranks as one of the few real victories of the UK left in years and it happened precisely because we used new tactics.

it is tactically stupid to rule out the use of violence just because according to the theories we shouldn't until we are in an insurrectionary situation. is someone going on all these demos and keeping count of numbers so at as soon as we hit the magic number we get told we're are allowed to smash things up? in any case surely getting 150,000 people on the streets is a good time to give it a try.

What does being 'anti-capitalist' mean?

When I say that capital is a social relation (ie. between exploited and exploiter-worker and boss) and therefore strikes, occupations etc...are effective ways of stopping the production of Capital, it does not mean that all other actions are pointless, they can have a great symbolic meaning and politicise people in all sorts of ways. And in fact there energy can radicalise conservative workers organisations....

What I'm saying is that if you do not try to involve and link up with workers you cannot beat capitalism, this is why every 'social' movement (poll tax, cnd etc...) can only go so far before it loses energy and momentum.

So this is why property damage isn't particulalry useful as a method of challenging Capitalism, I want to take the buildings over and have the people who work in them control them, I want communities where the people that live in them control them.

Now of course, no one cries over a smashed bank, but the point is does the tatic get us to where we want to go?
No, in fact it turns debate inwards on ourselves rather than allowing us to discuss our ideas with the rest of the world who desperatley need to hear what we have to say.

btw, 50 000 postal workers in the UK took illegal strike action during the election, causing more chaos and loss to capitalism than any smashed bank, another big strike is in the offing, same with the health service, schools councils (look at Hackney) why not come down to the picket lines and talk with the people about why things like GATS/WTO are causing this to happen, and lets link up all our struggles.

It's not a question of looking at a handbook, it's actually happening on the world right now...there were 20 million on general strike in India against IMF last April, 7 million in Argentina before xmas, hundreds of thousands fighting water privatisation in Bolivia (successfully), a revolution in Serbia last year where the army came onto the side of the people, a strike by mcDonalds workers that stopped McDonalds in the Centre of Paris at xmas, general strike in Greece a few weeks ago which meant there were thousands from Greece on the Sat in Genoa...now no one's saying there wasn't any violence at these events but you'll actually find that in most revolutions there are only small amounts of violence because the masses are moving taking the army etc...with them.

as they said in Seattle 'Teamsters and turtle kids together at last'....for the revolution,

noel

I agree with pretty much everything you just wrote. but my general point is that we shouldn't get caught in the blinkered "workplace struggle is everything" mindset because recent experience shows that others tactics can be more effective at certain times - the poll tax being the classic community revolt that was successful without a workplace struggle.

keep fighting!

whatever his faults he was always very sympathetic to the anarchist scene. just found a class quote that some of the media could to with getting their heads around. I am paraphrasing but it runs along the lines of....

"Using 'anarchism' indifferently with 'anarchy' is a hardly more correct use of words than saying that a Conservative is one who makes jam."