Everyone should mask up at demonstrations regardless of whether or not they agree with violent tactics. The reason being that there are always loads of Forward Intellegence Teams at demos trying to photograph as many demonstrators as possible inoder to build databases of activists. Plus most people arrested after riots after police have viewed video footage of protests have usually not taken part in any violence or destruction they have just been innocent bystanders who were close by. A good example of this is when the Sun Newspaper after the 1990 poll tax riot published the photo of a man standing next to an expensive car with the caption, this man was standing next to a posh car, one minute later it was in flames. In reality the guy pictured had nothing to do with the incident he just happened to be close by moments before someone else set fire to it. Infact most of the cases brought against alleged poll tax rioters were eventually thrown out of court after many months.

Before saying what I think, I'd like to ask everyone to *listen* to and respect each other in the debate that will probably follow, and be genuinely willing to reconsider your own opinions. Should go without saying, but in these kind of v. polarised arguments it probably does need to be said.

I was with the BB on Saturday, and I still feel it was the right thing to do. However, I can understand why some of those on the main demo were angry with the BB and it's raised some difficult questions for me.

I see the economic damage of a BB as only a minor part of its impact. More significant is the psychological message it sends out - which can be positive or negative depending on whether it inspires and empowers people or alienates and disempowers them. What's important to notice here is that everyone will have a different reaction; there will always be at least some people pissed off by it and at least some people happy to see it happen. What I would hope to acheive would be to increase the confidence and fighting spirit of more oppressed sectors of society, while limiting as much as possible the extent to which potential allies (eg trade unionists) are alienated.

I think we should have made more effort to move outside our anarchist comfort zones and engage with the main march about what we were doing and why. Even just a few small groups handing out leaflets with arguments in favour of property damage and self-defence would've made quite a difference. It depresses me to see that large numbers of potential allies were only hearing one side of the argument.

Of course, to a certain extent property damage which is well-targeted speaks for itself. But I still think without direct human contact and dialogue, people will build up very damaging stereotypes and misconceptions about us.

That's one of the potential drawbacks about BB. Unless there is a decent level of mutual understanding in the movement, dressing all in black with masked faces makes it harder for others to see us as human beings; they forget that we are ordinary people just like them.

So let's continue to use militant tactics, but be smart about how and when. Let's listen carefully to our critics, not the likes of Miliband and TUC leaders, but those *within* the movement; we don't have to agree with them about everything, but we should be willing to adapt our tactics and change our attitudes as part of a dialogue which builds solidarity. Let's also make more effort to put our own arguments across, and let's find ways to humanise those masked faces in the eyes of people who misunderstand or fear us.

Also, although I think we didn't do enough to engage with the main march, it's not too late; we all have friends and contacts in diverse parts of the anti-cuts movement and I'd urge everyone who supports BB tactics to go out of their way to have constructive conversations with them in the next days and weeks.

So you have a demonstration of half a million trade unionists. Thousands and thousands of them have been involved in strikes within the past months, have manned picket lines and organised local demonstrations. They've come to London from all over the UK - by train, by coach, and by boat (quite literally as a number of regional groups came up the Thames ) to demonstrate. And you think that "property damage" will send a "psychological message" to "empower" these people ? I think you need to think again about the whole strategy of Black Bloc - It didn't add anything positive to the day. For all the posturing , the more "fluffy" forms of direct action have had a bigger impact, "self defence" is more widely defended, while break-a-window Black bloccery slides to easily into self appointed macho posturing.

I'm not sure I understand your point SH, what fluffy actions are you referring to? If it's outside the context of the march, then sure, the Black Bloc is only one of a diverse range of tactics, I don't think anybody honestly believes the media slant that this is the only form of anarchist political action. But if you're referring to fluffy tactics on the march, can you provide examples? From my experience of the day (and subsequent reading) all those actions that empowered people were "violent" by the media's definition and described as part of (or even orchestrated) by the Black Bloc. Both of those allegations are very questionable, and there's so many points to pick apart and so many assumptions made before any kind of dialogue can even begin; like definitions which see sound systems in trafalgar square as violent, and the tacit acceptance of the media lies that these and other actions were entirely instigated by the Bloc, denying agency to others who acted that day.

Regardless, to divide any action into "passive" trade unionists, and "irresponsible" anarchists is to completely ignore the point BBer made, which is that any bloc is formed of a diverse range of individuals. Why would you assume that amongst that Bloc there aren't workers who have recently been on strike, have been organising in their workplaces and communities and see this style of action as simply another part of that struggle. Similarly, why take the TUC leadership's word for it that other workers in the same position disagree with these tactics? This kind of divisiveness is both harmful and ultimately pointless, but can be easily refuted if we remember that the Bloc is not formed of "thugs" and "agitators" but by those who see it as part, not the total, of a strategy of resistance.

Not that complicated Eris -(1) I wouldn't define the march itself as "passive" and I don't know why you do - the march itself was the most important thing, a big demonstration of solidarity (2) UK Uncut organised acts of direct action did add something, they were, the "fluffy" acts (3) Black bloc "destruction of property" was not useful . There are always going to be press attacks on any kind of activity, the question is (a) does this activity help the anti cuts campaign or not (and smashing bank windows in this case doesn't) and (b) is it easier to defend your activity from press attacks. It is easy to argue that the Police are being used politically if they have to lie to arrest a lot of non-destructive F & M occupiers. It is harder to do so with some of the Black Bloc activities. the Black Bloc-ers might be strike leaders in the rest of the time (although I doubt this is the case that often, or they would be making a bigger deal of it) but they are not really trying to relate to a major workers demonstration , just using it at a backdrop. The point is that - at least in this case - the Black Bloc tactic was not a part of the 'strategy of resistance' at all , it was a diversion and a mistake .

The students and workers of Britain and beyond have been failed and in some cases betrayed by urbane technocrats who are focused more on their own personal careers and welfare.

Being too timid to challenge the ever increasingly aggressive banks and corporations, we now find ourselves in a very weak position. Negotiating from a weak position is a non-starter, political activists of all stripes are looking for ways to break this endless drive towards undermining and disenfranchising the common people of Britain.

The Labour party had people like Lord Levy [Lord Chaspoint] buying political favours that benefitted the banks and corporations at the expense of the people. We have this shameful spectacle of the government 'Bank Bailouts' to the tune of billions. We read about wealthy politicians and businessmen receiving hundreds of thousands and even millions in Common Agricultural Payments.

Successive governments have methodically taxed the working class, sick and disabled and at the same time passed legislation that benefits their wealthy friends. This is a sickening spectacle and those capable of understanding what is going on are getting bloody angry! While union leaders and others like yourself who are supposed to be representing those being targetted by these unjust and aggressive policies, seem more concerned with media image and not upsetting the establishment.

There is a growing number of people, like myself, who are beginning to realise that we need a far more aggressive attitude to reclaim what many generations have sacrificed their lives to realise. We need action, not sweet words and feeble excuses. If you can't help, get out of the way.

Me and my comrades had a great day. We have differing views and opinions, i.e. he is a communist and i am a anarchist and the third fella a factory worker in unite union and a bit of a socialist. We met up at embankment, went on the main march for a bit, then changed into black clothes, merged with the black blok, went went along oxford st with them, then along picadily after which we went into hyde park for a while, with one fella handing out soc party leaflets. We then re joined a bloc ended in trf sq.

Marching has largely achieved fuck all.
Petitions have largely achieved fuck all.
Speeches by authoritarian old windbags have largely achieved fuck all.

Direct action has a long illustrious history of delivering results. Ask the people of Libya, Egypt, the 1968 generation, the Black Civil Rights Movement, the ANC... Or perhaps ask someone closer to home:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette

Who gives a flying fuck what trade unions think. They committed suicide under Thatcher. They have already failed before they left the house for the march.

Bert
(1) You are saying the Trade Union movement is dead while attending a Trade Union organised march of hundreds of thousands of people. The Black Bloc activity depended on - piggy backed on - a Trade Union organised protest . It is a bit of a "what have the Romans ever done for us" moment.

(2) You refer to " the people of Libya, Egypt, the 1968 generation, the Black Civil Rights Movement, the ANC and the Sufragettes" to show marching achieves nothing. Yet mass marches where a vital and central piece of every one of those struggles (it is amazing to me you do not seem to know this) - they also went beyond marches into other forms of action, but marches were a central way of building solidarity, showing their strength etc. the question is how to build further action from big marches. If you start by suggesting the march itself is a waste of time, you really are counting yourself out. As it happens many of the Trade Unionists who were marching - the ones you don't care a "flying fuck" about - were already engaged in direct action - strike action, also some occupations - and will go on to be involved in more. the question is - and I don't suggest there is an easy answer to this - how to increase that activity. But you start off by writing off trade unionists, marchers, the march itself, and apparently also strike action. If your views are typical of Black Bloc participants, they really do suggest the Black Bloc tactic is a dead end. You seem to be suggesting that a few hundred people breaking a bank window on Saturday afternoon is more important than a few thousand striking.

1. The black bloc are typically people who also engage in activities other than demos. We don't require any TUC marches to do that. And yeah, the Unions called the march, but they don't own it.

2. Seems like you did the wrong reading in history. Those movements were effective because they engaged in direct action and civil disobedience as well as the fluffy marches (your keen powers of deuction seemed to ahve missed that obvious resolution).

Like the Anonymous group the vast majority of participants in popular movements are often fluffy window dressing and the effective work is done by people taking bigger risks... which is fair enough as not everyone is able to risk their jobs and family life, but to assert that "peaceful" means alone (conflating property destruction with violence) will effect change is to swallow the tranquillisers of the state.

Sure strike is direct action of a sort and should be supported, but to be realistic, unions are all about keeping a relationship of power between the workers and capital. Unions are by far no longer revolutionary if many ever were. They are reformist and often a fucking chocolate teapot when it comes to defending their members. They fund the Labour Party which could only resolved to class struggle as an act of self-harming. If you want to impress me then get back to wildcat strikes, sympathy strikes, strict anti-scabbing across union lines, call a general strike. Till then you are sticking plaster on an open wound.

Brendan Barber flagged himself up as a class traitor by condemning the direct action on Saturday. I too condem any mindless thuggery that happened, but what Barber was doing was what all the other counterrevolutionary corporations and establishments do and that was to conflate the incidents of direct action and response to people violence with a small amount of dickheads.

Voting, marches, petition, speeches, newspapers will never change anything without direct action. If you are dismissing direct action as thuggery, then you are all about stasis and should not pretend to be any more radical than Ed Milliband who should have been bottled off that stage.

I know it's a bit late in the discussion, but replying to 'protestor', talking about poll tax riot arrestees - sorry you're wrong. Most cases were not thrown out, many people were convicted (including me) and many went to prison, some for up to two years. And the specific point about the bloke arrested for allegedly setting fire to a porsche is also inaccurate. Some people were acquitted, true, but it wasn't usually to do with them being 'innocent bystanders', some of it was to do with hard work viewing video evidence and catching out lying cops; some people who were technically 'guilty' got off because the police lied (as in the case of the 'car burner).

Your point about masking up is useful, something to be discussed, but it's worth getting your facts straight.