I'm A Better Anarchist Than You
Some Thoughts on Vancouver and the Black Bloc
I love a good riot. The distant sound of things breaking, the smoke billowing from whatever is burning, the young men and women busily smashing whatever they can find into fist-sized pieces, launching the objects over the heads of their fellow rioters (if all goes well) and into the ranks of the black-clad police with their Ninja Turtle armor, translucent plastic shields and their array of far more sophisticated weaponry. I love the scent of tear gas (if I'm just on the outskirts of the cloud), it's exhilarating, the scent of possibility, of the situation's volatility, the thrilling uncertainty. The excitement of seeing the barricades get lit on fire, knowing that no police vehicle, no matter how well-armored, is going to drive through that.
They're going to have to put the fire out first, and until they manage to get some big hoses to the scene (which might require the participation of the fire department, which might not want to participate), this is our block. Maybe the police even retreat a couple times under particularly heavy volleys of rocks and bottles, the crowd surges and cheers, meanwhile the more experienced rioters stay busy gathering wheelbarrows full of more things to throw at the cops, knowing they'll be back soon. My neighbor says it's because I'm an Aries, but whatever it is, if I find myself in the midst of such a situation, the memories are all fond ones of the rush and the togetherness of the moment. It's a warm, fuzzy feeling, really.
However, most people in most of the countries with which I'm fairly familiar – the US, Canada, England, Germany, Denmark, Australia, Japan – don't feel that way. For most people I meet riots are scary things and they don't care or notice much whether it was a chain store's windows smashed or a local one, whether only SUV's were torched or hybrids, too, whether any passersby got hurt in the process or not. The major news outlets don't pay much attention to what the underlying reasons for the rioting is – just enough about the situation for people to associate the riot with the cause and the cause with scary people who aren't like them.
I've been home in Portland over the past couple weeks, not in Vancouver for the Olympics and the accompanying protests that tend to materialize when a gigantic corporate event and the international media covering it rolls into (and over) the town. By European standards the event the media was focusing on sounds like it was a pathetic little riot, a few smashed windows and overturned newspaper boxes, but it managed to attract the lion's share of Canadian and even international media coverage, as usual – it's sensational, but more than that it serves the purposes of corporate media outlets who, for political reasons, want to make most protesters look bad and don't want people going out to rock the boat in the first place.
By my informal count traveling around, I'd say that most people in many countries are afraid to go to protests, even if their sympathies are with those protesting. They're afraid of what they've heard in the media about how things get out of control. They'd rather avoid lines of police in riot gear, and they feel unsafe at the thought that what they believed was going to be a nonviolent event might suddenly get scary when a small group of people decide to start throwing rocks through store windows.
Some of the rock-throwing anarchists (as opposed to the far more numerous non-rock-throwing variety of anarchists) will now ask, who cares? Who cares if lots of people are afraid to come to protests because of us? They're “liberals” anyway (anyone who doesn't support your right to riot is a liberal, in case you didn't know).
But here's the thing: we need a mass movement, and contrary to what certain popular primitivist authors like to say, a few thousand dedicated people are not going to accomplish much of anything, let alone revolutionary change, without the support of a mass movement. That is, whatever tactics you're using to organize resistance groups of any kind, the tactics need to be ones that don't completely alienate the general public (very much including the “liberals”). And the general public tends to be freaked out by groups of people committing acts of violence (or forms of property destruction that seem violent to them). In recent decades lots of people in lots of places have embraced all kinds of militant and often effective tactics – strikes, bus boycotts, sit-ins, building take-overs, nonviolent civil disobedience of all kinds. Those of any political persuasion who would say that tactics like these are universally ineffective are simply ignorant.
Equally, there have been some pretty darn effective movements that have employed violence around the world over the past few decades and centuries, and you'd have to be an extremely ideological pacifist not to recognize that. But these movements that have employed violent means have used a lot more than rocks. It takes a pretty desperate situation (say, Cuba in 1959) for movements like that to garner popular support, and there's not a serious guerrilla movement anywhere that wouldn't admit that the fish need the sea in which to swim, or they quickly die.
In the context of most modern, relatively well-off countries, it seems quite evident that rioting – even if it's not much of a riot – only impedes anyone's efforts at building a movement. It is, in fact, a much-used strategy of the police, as we've seen time and time again certainly throughout North America, Europe and elsewhere. I have no doubt that the first rock thrown is thrown by an undercover cop at least half the time in most situations. I also have no doubt that most of the young people participating in Black Bloc and advocating for “diversity of tactics” (translation: “don't tell me not to throw rocks, you oppressive, ageist liberal carnivore!”) are well-meaning people doing a lot of good work in their communities when they're not throwing rocks through windows. But whether or not they want to believe it, when they start throwing rocks during a march they are doing exactly the same work as the police provocateurs – I mean literally, not figuratively.
Black Bloc: doesn't this make you wonder about what the fuck you're doing?



Smashing can be useful for mass movements
By Doe, Jon at Feb 25, 2010 18:47 PM
this is a really simple and reductionist analysis on the tactic of the black bloc. It is written from afar without looking at the context of why smart committed and strategic people might use these tactics during the olympic protests. please direct your analysis to the specifics of what happen and avoid making huge unsupported claims that divide the movement and keep people from supporting people who are now facing charges based on what may have been risky, courageous and necessary actions. Innovation and initiative are two key intangibles that are critical for winning in conflict situations, lets support people trying risky things out and learn about why they may be taking such actions: http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2010/02/15/riot-2010/
Mass movements world wide use trashing property and fighting police in effective and important ways without acting as police or being simply "privledged". Effective disruption is a huge topic but it can, does and will involve all types of people taking all types of tactics.
"There is substantial evidence that the fear of domestic disruption has inhibited murderous plans." - Noam Chomsky
Reply this comment
Re: Smashing can be useful for mass movements
By Grinder, Matt at Feb 25, 2010 20:30 PM
One question, if you don't mind. Do you beleive smashing property like this inspires people? Makes them want to join up? (Well maybe that's two questions..)
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Smashing can be useful for mass movements
By Doe, Jon at Feb 25, 2010 21:33 PM
yes, but depends on who you are trying to inspire and what your up against. Look at the recent movement for justice for oscar grant: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/15/18601725.php
for example:
Unfinished Acts is a collective recounting and analysis of events surrounding the shooting of an unarmed 22-year-old Black man in Oakland. Oscar Grant III was executed by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police officers during the first hours of 2009 on the platform of the Fruitvale station. Unfinished Acts was written collectively by a group of anarchists who were and still are actively present in the rebellion following Oscar Grant’s execution.
We were in the streets during the spontaneous uprising in downtown Oakland on January 7th where numerous cars were torched and businesses were smashed during militant standoffs with the Oakland Police Department. We were in the many demos since, attended countless 'community meetings' at locations ranging from Black churches to art gallery spaces to anarchist co-ops, and organized support and solidarity for those who were arrested during confrontational actions. In those free moments, which barely exist, we have put together this exposé on the events so far (as the story is still unfolding) and would like to share it with you."
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/06/15/unfinished_acts_edit3reduced.pdf
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Smashing can be useful for mass movements
By Grinder, Matt at Feb 25, 2010 21:48 PM
It's certainly true that in certain times and places, property smashing, even violence can inspire and help a movement to get bigger. I'm not against multiple tactics at all. Remember thought, this is not Spain and it is not the 1930's. This is vancouver 2010, February. The question I want to ask is : In THIS time and THIS place (Vancouver a week or so ago), was this action somthing that will inspire more people to join, will help the movement?"
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Smashing can be useful for mass movements
By Doe, Jon at Feb 26, 2010 00:10 AM
these people have a answer to your question: http://friendlyfirecollective.info/2010/?p=132
and more generally
http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2010/02/15/riot-2010/
are they wrong, stupid, privledged or suicidal? I wasn't there. But we deserve better debate then this article. what do you think?
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smashing can be useful for mass movements
By Grinder, Matt at Feb 26, 2010 06:35 AM
It was obviously not appropriate for this time and place. One only has to read what the "average" person posts on a mainstream website like CBC (with alot of people posting symapthetic to Anti-Olympic protesters) to get a sense of how this contributed to getting people on your side. Far as I can tell, the vast majority vehemently and overwhelmingly condemned it. It alienated a great deal of people. Most were struck dumb in shock. They don't go, "Oh, I wonder why a rational person does that?" and investigate what kind of point they were trying to make. Instead the majority thought "What is wrong with these people?" And dismissed them.
It's pretty well the opposite of movement building.
I think the article is right on many points, it does not dismiss these tactics, but asks "when are they effective?". That's the right question, and for the majority of the time in North America, here, now, it is not effective.
Reply this comment
not "all" tactics but appropriate tactics
By Corbett, Jean-Francois at Feb 26, 2010 15:05 PM
Jonathan, you write:
> Effective disruption is a huge topic but it can, does and will involve all types of people taking all types of tactics. [my bold]
To me this is a myth to be dispelled. I think effective, const disruption involves people taking not "all" types of tactics, but appropriate types of tactics, i.e. tactics that increase the likelihood of disruption by a greater number of people tomorrow and next year, and then reaching the long-term goal.
In movement-building as in just about any undertaking in life, some tactics are conterproductive, and everyone should recognize that. We should all be open to debate about our own tactics as well as others', and not obstinately hide behind a blanket statement that "it's all good".
Seems to me, variants of the phrase quoted above are often wielded in order to choke, or exempt oneself from, any democratic/popular debate regarding which tactics are most promising, and which are likely to be counterproductive. I'm not saying that this is your intention in this particular instance; but I am arguing that using this type of statement is detrimental to healthy debate.
Now, whether thrashing property should be considered appropriate in certain given circumstances is another question...
Reply this comment
I concur
By McGehee, Michael at Feb 25, 2010 18:01 PM
young, white, privileged suburbanites dressed in black and smashing windows is not revolutionary.
Reply this comment