The anti-NATO demo in Prague was only peaceful because it was so small. 5,000 is very small and there were 12,000 riot cops in the city as well so they would have stood no chance.

The anti-NATO demo was very disapointing considering the vast anti-capitalist demonstrations of recent years like last years 300,000 strong demo in Genoa and the recent 300,000 strong anti-war demonstration in Florence.

The NATO conference in Prague should have been the focus for the European anti-war march and there should have been a mass mobilisation of hundreds of thousands of people there instead of leaving it to a few thousand protesters. NATO is the organisation which in a few weeks will be bombing the hell out of Iraq and which in three and a half years ago bombed the hell out of Serbia killing thousands of people and last year bombed Afghanistan. That NATO conference should have stopped by all means!

I read two stories on IMC Italy, both detailed how communists and pacifists were beaten up. In the end the march was almost entirely anarchist bacause anyone waving communist or other banners was attacked .. United we stand, divided we fall
might be a good one too remember ....

non violent anarchist ..

I'd be horrified if this was true. I don't know of any anarchist who would want to physically attack another protest group just because they had a different ideology. I certainly didn't see this kind of thing going on myself.

I think the main reason the anti-NATO demo was mainly anarchist was because socialism is a very dirty word in the Czech Republic. The official Communist party is basically neo-Stalinist, and most young Czechs associate socialism with the forty-odd years of decrepit Stalinist rule. There were a huge number of socialists at the Prague IMF summit in 2000, but these were mostly from western Europe.

It would have been great if all the people who went to Florence had also come to Prague. NATO is an institution which promotes unsustainable levels of military spending in poor Eastern European countries that can hardly afford it. It would have made better sense for activists to disrupt the NATO summit than to take part in yet another pointless A to B march in Italy.

However, there is another opportunity to make life hard for NATO - there is a mass mobilisation planned for Munich in February 2003. Last year about 8,000 people came to Germany for an illegal demonstration - 900 were arrested. Perhaps we should make next year's demonstration a focus for European anti-war agitation.

I don't know wether it's true or not, but here is the link from the IMC Italy, there has been some debate 6 * comments with mud slingers wading in ...

heres da link
 http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/116492.php

seems that this guy Claudio Buttazzo (51 anni, proveniente da Bologna), had his nose broken by some black bloc types.
and other people were discouraged from joining the march.

Any move towards less violence in demonstrations seems to me a good thing, particularly for anarchists. People have long held the image of anarchists as violent thugs, and I think it's necessary to disprove this. I realise that often it's the police who are out to provoke trouble, and on occasion you can't just sit there and do nothing, but trashing people's cars such as happened in Genoa isn't going to win any mass support.

Demonstrations don't have to be violent to get media attention -- London's last big anti-war demo got some attention, although obviously building a demo of that size isn't something you can do everyday, or for every cause. There are lots of ideas out there for creative and attention-grabbing action.

Hallo. I´m anarchist from Prague and i would like say something to incident. I myself don´t agree with atacking, but before demo was agreement between organisers and trockists, that they would come without their propaganda, especially flags with hook and hammer, and they disrupt this agreement. For western moralists: we have different experineces with ideologies as are stalinism, trockism and so on. That reason why czech (and probably eastern) anarchist strongly refuse this kind "left" ideologies. In the past trockists and stalinists to atract young people created different Iniciatives, that at first and second look didnú t seemed as trockists allurement. Now they have Iniciative against war. It is their unfair tactics. Agreement befor demo was: come as iniciativ, but without you partie´s propaganda.
I know, dicussion about new block bloc? and tactis would be more important, but i have wanted comment a little bit context of incident.


I send comment one anarchist about incident.

-----------
Incident with bolseviks on antiNATO demonstration in Prague, 21. 11. 2002
Czech trockist are organised in small organisations, which are parts of
bigger international organisations. There are three: Socialisticka
alternativa Budoucnost (Socialist alternative - The Future), member section
of Committee for Workers International, Socialisticka Solidarita (Socialist
Solidarity), member section of International Socialist, and Socialisticka
organizace pracujicich (Socialist organization of labour), member section of
League fo Revolutionary Communist International. Their ideology is not
attractive in Czech republic with experience of Bolshevik dictatorship, so
they create front organisation for their agitprop work in ranks of young
angry people. It was Campaign for rights of youth, Initiative against
racism, and now it is Initiative against war.
Members of Bolshevik organisations (and some sympathizers of Initiative
against war) made block, which came on demonstrations against NATO, which
was organised by anti-authoritarian platform AntiNATO (it includes
Czechoslovak anarchist federation, Feminist group of 8. 3. and many of
individuals). Anarchists have big political problems with Bolsheviks
parasitizing on anarchist demonstrations and in many times we said it in
many times hem, that they are not welcome. Now they promised, that they will
not propagate their Bolshevik ideas and organisations, but that they will
propagate only their anti-war campaign. It was compromise and we let them on
our demonstration 20. 11.
But at 21. 11. there were also Rifondazione Comunista next to block of
Initiative against war (this block had 40-90 members on demonstration). As
we traced latter, they were not informed about promise of Czech trots. They
had on anarchist demonstration banner with big sickle and hammer. We really
do not want to have on anarchist demonstration symbols of Bolshevik
dictatorships, which liquidated many of anarchists in Russia, Ukraine,
Korea, Spain and Bulgaria and also for many years suppressed peoples of coun
tries in eastern Europe.
One organiser (member of Feminist group of 8. 3.) therefore came to them and
asked them to furl their banner or leave demonstration. She even proposed
them to go on route, where we had possibility to have legal march, but which
we did not want to go. When they did not reflect, she attacked their banner,
but she was attacked from members of RifCom, which beat and bitted her. Some
Czech trots said that this was revenge for Zdenek Zewel, Czech Trot, who was
brutally attacked in summer 2001 by some Czech militant anarchists from
circles near to Federation of Social Anarchists (member section of IWA).
Circa one hour after it there were Bolsheviks, namely members of RifCom,
attacked by some masked people from Czech militant anarchist/antifascist
circles (Czech trots said, that their number was twenty). They broke to one
member of RifCom his nose.
Organisers did not want tolerate block, which included people, who attacked
our comrade. So, in the time, when anarchist procession stood in Belehradska
street and waited on procession of eastern European anarchists, went one
member of CSAF and some masked antifascists to block of Initiative against
war, where also some members of RifCom were. Member of CSAF called to
Bolsheviks to go off and masked antifascists attacked them. One of
Bolsheviks called to retreat, there was liquidated one banner of Initiative
against war. In a moment the police arrived and divided Bolsheviks from
angry antifascists. Some of them started to scream "Bolshevik cunts!" (!!!)
and other slogans.
I think, that we cannot tolerate on our actions Bolshevik propaganda. We
also cannot tolerate attacks of our comrades. I think, that it was not good
to attack them so rashly, without to give them any time to go off. I was
also disgusted from political level of slogans, which were cried against
them. But RifCom should understand, that to bring banner with big sickle and
hammer on anarchist demonstration in Eastern Europe is not good idea.
Sorry for my bad English.
O. S.
Member of Czechoslovak anarchist federation

Hmmm, regarding "new" Black Block tactics: From what we learned in Oslo, the peacenik tactic is a two-edged blade. To us it felt like a victory at first, especially since the Reclaim-party went off in a very good manner, with lots of immigrant families joining the party and general good time being had all around. This was, of course, seen by the media as a great victory for the moderates of Attac who had spent considerable energy in advance demonizing the anarchist/black element. In later reflection, I think we missed our targets somewhat, since almost all our energy was spent on that one action, however succesful.

The tactics of the Black Bloc need, I think, to move away from the "charge of the uniformed mass" idea that has been predominant. However, I feel it urgently that this needs to be replaced by tactics of militant (hopefully non-violent) civil disobedience. I participated recently in a coordinated actions in Oslo, where three groups at 9.00 in the morning threw blood and oil at the norwegian parlament, foreign ministry and government headquarters (see  http://www.indymedia.no/news/2002/10/3043.php for pics), and while this in itself was just a singular action, I think the symbolism functioned well. I know vegans might sdisagree, but to drench these buildings with real blood as opposed to theatre blood/pies seemed absolutely fitting to me. There are many corporate headquarters out there, and I think this form of organization, of non-violent symbolist cells in coordinated action might cause the fascisti some real problems. They cant guard everything.

So, to sum up: By all means demonstrations and marches on centres, but at the same time, independent units who do their things using common themes (such as blood, etc.) and slogans. As we have learned, its much easier to block something/foul something than to attack and escape afterwards.

Hmmm, regarding "new" Black Block tactics: From what we learned in Oslo, the peacenik tactic is a two-edged blade. To us it felt like a victory at first, especially since the Reclaim-party went off in a very good manner, with lots of immigrant families joining the party and general good time being had all around. This was, of course, seen by the media as a great victory for the moderates of Attac who had spent considerable energy in advance demonizing the anarchist/black element. In later reflection, I think we missed our targets somewhat, since almost all our energy was spent on that one action, however succesful.

The tactics of the Black Bloc need, I think, to move away from the "charge of the uniformed mass" idea that has been predominant. However, I feel it urgently that this needs to be replaced by tactics of militant (hopefully non-violent) civil disobedience. I participated recently in a coordinated actions in Oslo, where three groups at 9.00 in the morning threw blood and oil at the norwegian parlament, foreign ministry and government headquarters (see  http://www.indymedia.no/news/2002/10/3043.php for pics), and while this in itself was just a singular action, I think the symbolism functioned well. I know vegans might sdisagree, but to drench these buildings with real blood as opposed to theatre blood/pies seemed absolutely fitting to me. There are many corporate headquarters out there, and I think this form of organization, of non-violent symbolist cells in coordinated action might cause the fascisti some real problems. They cant guard everything.

So, to sum up: By all means demonstrations and marches on centres, but at the same time, independent units who do their things using common themes (such as blood, etc.) and slogans. As we have learned, its much easier to block something/foul something than to attack and escape afterwards.

one of the big problems with discussing black block tactics is the ideological envionment within which these debates take place. they seem to revolve around the almost religious question whether people support confrontation or not. instead, what we should do is apply tactics according to the aims we want to achieve in specific situations. let's not look at the pure tactics (physical confrontation vs. symbolic, "peaceful" actions) but instead let's assess them within their specific context.

if our aim is to shut down a conference, then heavy physical confrontation my be a good strategy to achieve that. if our aim is to create an event which involves large sections of society, or which promotes alternatives to global power structures, then physical confrontation may not be such a good idea.

the same applies with regards to the environment in which actions take place. if our actions are based on widespread support by large parts of the public, then they can be more radical and confrontational. on the other hand, in a context where there's strong and successful media propaganda and in which activists are perceived as "terrorists", then we should be more careful.

any of the aims mentioned above can make sense in particular situations. what we should do is identify the context of particular actions, formulate specific aims for those acions, and then find tactics and methods which correspond to those aims.

let's not discuss these issues from an ideological or religious perspective, which can only lead to a division of the movement. let's regard different action tactics as a pool from which we can choose those that work best in specific situations. let's be strategic!